Pwosè vèbal

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Meeting was held on October 14, 2013, at 3:33 p.m. with Chairman Dixon presiding. Members present were Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Perza, Mr. Caldwell, and Mrs. Horsey (arrived at 3:44 p.m.). Mayor Carey was also present (arrived at 3:35 p.m.). AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, the agenda was approved as presented. Future Use of the Dover Park Recreation Center During the Committee Meeting of July 8, 2013, members recommended approval of staff’s recommendation to demolish the recreation center at Dover Park. Since that meeting, several members of the community relayed opposition to the demolition, as recommended by the Committee (Attachment #1). As a result, when the Committee’s recommendation was presented to City Council during their meeting of July 22, 2013, members of City Council referred the matter back to the Committee to allow staff time to research methodologies for funding repair or replacement or finding a public/private partnership to keep the recreation center in operation. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reminded members that since the opening of the John W. Pitts Center in April 2008, the demand for use of the recreation center at Dover Park declined and that, while the City continued to rent the Dover Park recreation center for parties, the Pitts Center became the primary focus of the City’s recreation programming. She explained that the recreation center no longer serves the purposes of the City’s recreation programming and noted that the programs that were scheduled for the Dover Park recreation center were frequently cancelled due to low attendance. Mrs. Townshend advised members that the building was constructed in 1974 and that it needed investment to maintain functionality. She stated that the City had discontinued rental of the building and that the FY2013 budget included $30,000 in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to replace the roof of the building, explaining that the roof had routinely been patched to repair leaks. Mrs. Townshend indicated that, during FY2013, there was discussion about potentially renting the building out to a non-profit organization. Before investing funds to replace the roof and pursuing the potential of leasing the building to a non-profit organization, staff felt it was important to do a full assessment of the building to determine what other investments would be necessary to make the building functional, as all of the building's systems were dated and in need of some update. As a result, she stated that Compliance Environmental, Inc., was retained to do a Building Condition Survey. Members were provided a copy of the "Report of Findings from a Building Condition Survey" dated May 6, 2013, which included a summary of the recommended repairs, as well as cost estimates totaling $110,475. Although the Building Condition Survey did not include a structural engineering report, should City Council wish to keep the building and renovate it, staff would recommend that a structural engineering report be obtained prior to any renovations. However, based on the information contained in the Building Condition Survey, staff recommended demolition of the structure and noted that the costs associated with demolition, estimated at $20,000 for asbestos removal and $30,000 for demolition (bids would require City Council approval), were not currently budgeted.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 2 Mrs. Townshend reviewed a Presentation - Future Use of Dover Park Recreation center (Attachment #2). Having received concerns from the community regarding the recommendation for demolition, she stated that staff’s alternative recommendation was for the City to hire a consultant to do a Parks and Recreation System Plan for the City, which would include the Dover Park. She explained that the Plan would address indoor and outdoor recreation needs and guide investment in the City’s parks to help meet system-wide needs. In addition, the Plan would make recommendations on building partnerships to meet the City’s recreation needs. As an interim plan, Mrs. Townshend recommended performing maintenance and minimal repairs to the building; making the building available for rentals and for programming; utilizing partners to provide programming; and, allowing the building to be open only for scheduled events or programming. Responding to Mr. Hutchison, Mrs. Townshend stated that the repairs indicated in Table 1 of the Executive Summary of Building Condition Survey do not include any ADA requirements and that significant renovations would be necessary to provide restrooms that are handicapped accessible. Although such requirements may not be required by Code, she felt that if the City opted to maintain the facility, it would need to be made accessible to any and everyone. She advised members that one of the main concerns relayed by the public was the accessibility of the City’s parks. It was her opinion that to include ADA Standards in the repairs recommended, the costs would be between $175,000 and $200,000. Ms. Dolores Blackman, 7 Starboard Court, questioned the security of the City’s buildings, feeling that if people felt safe, they would use the facilities more often. Responding, Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, indicated that the Police Department monitors all City parks; however, they are not provided a schedule for the use of the parks. Ms. Blackman felt it was imperative for the City to provide security and questioned the possibility of an entry gate being installed to limit individuals from accessing the area during certain hours. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that there is a gate beyond the building which limits access to the park (open space), noting that such gates are installed at all open space parks; however, he felt that a gate could also be installed closer to the roadway, prohibiting access to the building during certain times. Mr. Reuben Salters, 109 Bertrand Drive, noted that it costs the City to provide recreation on the west side of Dover and that there are also taxpayers residing on the east side of the City. It was his feeling that the City should not let monetary issues prohibit providing recreation to all resident of the City. Mr. Salters suggested that members consider the human value in this regard, particularly for the youth, and indicated confidence in the State providing funding assistance for recreational programming. He advised members that a petition opposing the demolition of the Dover Park recreation center was submitted (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Mr. James Fogell, 360 Nimitz Road, advised members that Manchester Square was not in existence when the Dover Park recreation center was constructed and that it was originally planned to serve senior citizens. He relayed opposition to the demolition of the building and explained the importance of the City maintaining such assets. Mr. Fogell also noted that the buildings’ availability for rent had never been advertised. He advised members that he visits the City's parks regularly and urged members not to demolish the Dover Park recreation center.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 3 Responding to Mr. Perza, Mrs. Townshend stated that, at some point in time the City made Schutte Park the number one priority for recreation investment and, in doing so, attention was not paid to other recreation assets. She advised members that the City has been very proactive with the City-wide playground replacement program, upgrading equipment throughout the City. She noted that the City has numerous parks located throughout the City and, with the exception of replacing playground equipment, no consideration has been given to the needs of the residents in those areas. She felt that a City-wide review of all parks should be conducted to determine the needs of the community and to make the wisest investment. Mr. Perza questioned whether it would be better to invest in the building or other aspects of Dover Park. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff had discussed developing a plan for Dover Park that would include the management of vegetation to improve sight lines. She noted that there are a lot of concealed spaces in the park and managing vegetation could address some of the safety concerns. If staff was requested to make Dover Park a priority and bring forward a plan to make upgrades, Mrs. Townshend stated that would include a combination of interior and exterior improvements. She reminded members that, in recent years, the City had invested in the exterior infrastructure, such as the tennis courts, which are utilized for tennis programs, but had not invested in the building. Mr. Perza noted that many of the parks throughout Dover do not have buildings and questioned whether a study had been conducted to determine whether a demand for a building at Dover Park would exist today, if it were considered as a new park. Ms. Blackman explained the importance of aesthetics, noting that it has a lot to do with an individual’s decision whether to participate or not. She suggested that the use of horseshoes, shuffleboard, and chess be considered in improving the park, explaining that individuals would not want to be there if the facility and grounds were not maintained. Mr. Salters stated that he served on City Council during when the development of Schutte Park was taking place. He felt that the east side of Dover was neglected since everyone was focused on Schutte Park. Mr. Salters suggested that the City give the east side of Dover a priority in considering recreation for the next few years. He felt confident that the City could afford to make any necessary improvements and repairs to the building at Dover Park and requested that City Council give this consideration in the preparation of the City’s budget. Mr. Roddie Byers, 606 Walker Road, advised members that it was his recollection that when the development of Schutte Park was being considered, the original plan was to provide transportation for children residing on the east side of Dover to Schutte Park. In addition, he stated that there were plans to upgrade the sidewalk system to assist in getting children to Schutte Park. Mr. Fogell advised members that there are other maintenance issues involving the City parks, such as the ballfields having ruts that need filled. Mr. Hutchison stated that he has observed residents using the park for outdoor recreation and noted that the building does not meet the recreation needs for the community. He questioned if the City should invest $110,000 into a building that doesn’t begin to meet the recreation needs of today or

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 4 whether that money should be invested into the park (that comes with the real value). Mr. Hutchison noted that there is only one (1) local facility for senior citizens, the Modern Maturity Center, which serves 20,000 members from all areas of the City. He relayed support for improving and upgrading the Park; however, he questioned if it should include the building. Mr. Carl Barnes, 43 Homberg Circle, suggested that members not only consider the monetary value but the intangibles as well. Although the park would continue to function without the structure, he questioned what message demolition of the building would send. It was his feeling that the ADA issues should have been addressed several years ago. Concurring with Mr. Fogell, Mr. Barnes stated that he was not aware that the building was available for use and felt that there may not have been enough advertising. Mr. Barnes also indicated that whether there is a building on the property or not, security will still be required at the Park. He suggested the installation of outside restrooms, especially if the building is demolished. It was his opinion that the City would need to provide something in return for the community if the building is demolished and providing outside restrooms may be such an option. Concurring, Mr. Fogell advised members that the only public restrooms available in the area are portable toilets located near the tennis courts. He suggested that the City consider additional restrooms throughout the park. Mr. Byers suggested that the City conduct a community survey to assist in determining what action should be taken related to the Dover Park recreation center. Mr. Edward Christian, 9 Pennwood Drive, Dover, felt that the City should stop doing things piecemeal and develop short-term and long-term plans instead. He reminded members that an extensive study was conducted when Schutte Park was constructed and suggested that members use such studies to help determine what action should be taken. He recommended a cost and benefit review approach, explaining that if the benefits exceed the costs, the improvements and/or repairs should be completed; however, if the costs exceed the benefits, additional consideration should be given to determine if such improvements and/or repairs should be done. He noted that, for years, there had been concerns with the lack of recreation for youth and that this concern remains in the community today. Mrs. Townshend advised members that, in 1996, when she served as the Recreation Planner for the State of Delaware, a State-Wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan was conducted. When the survey data was gathered from 1995, Dover was over-sampled so that there was better validity because the City of Dover was in the process of conducting recreation planning at that time. In 2002, when she left that position, the State was in the process of conducting the 2002 State-Wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and that, at that time, there was no over-sampling, resulting in the review of the needs at the County level. Mr. Wayne Voshell, City of Dover Recreation Coordinator, advised members that, for several years, the citizens had indicated a desire for more outside activities, such as bike trails, walking trails, etc. He stated that, with the exception of basketball, the citizens had not indicated their desire for indoor recreation activities. Mr. Voshell indicated that one of the main issues with the Dover Park recreation center was the design of the building, noting difficulty hearing in the main room.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 5 Although most leagues and activities are outdoors, he stated that girl scout and boy scout club meetings were held in the building; however, he asked members to imagine trying to hear with several boys and girls talking in the room at the same time. Mr. Voshell agreed with the concerns regarding safety, explaining that he had been at the building late in the evening and did not feel safe. Responding, Mr. Salters stated that individuals feel safer at Schutte Park because of the excessive lighting. He relayed the simplicity of installing additional lighting at the Dover Park recreation center and suggested that the ceiling could be dropped at a minimal cost (less than $20,000), which would make the room very usable. Noting the lengthy discussion, Mr. Dixon suggested the possibility of creating a committee to review this matter. He suggested a recess to allow members to tour the building and park. Mr. Dixon stated that, following the tour, members should know which direction the City should take regarding this matter. Mr. Ellis Louden, 3 Michael Court, felt that more clear walking points were necessary. In addition, he questioned if the committee to be created would include community members and whether those members would be present when the City makes their determination. He questioned if there was a real Recreation Plan for the City. Mr. Perza moved for a 15 minute recess, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Meeting recessed at 4:44 p.m. and reconvened at 4:56 p.m. Mr. Perza moved to recommend assigning the Dover Park Study to the Planning Department for the purpose of: 1) developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to address the most appropriate investment of city-wide park resources in Dover Park, Schutte Park, and the parks located in the southwest and southeast corners of the City; 2) to determine whether the investment of sufficient resources is necessary to address all outdoor use, indoor use, restroom facilities, security facilities; 3) as a part of the RFP, to make a recommendation on what the best and most effective expenditure of resources is before a decision is made to expend additional resources on any of the park facilities within the City; 4) as a part of this review, there should be a resource inventory to determine whether or not the City has any of the prior studies and to determine if they are practical for future use; and, 5) to gather additional input not only from the communities on the east side of Route 13, but also from communities that have parks in the southern, western, and northern parts of the City. This is to be accomplished before the City commits to expending any resources to demolish any park buildings or for the purposes of creating or constructing additional park services in the City. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Mr. Perza moved to defer agenda items #2 and #3 to the next Committee Meeting, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 6 Mr. Perza moved to recommend that the City re-open the Dover Park recreation center for use, noting that anyone wishing to rent the facility can do so by contacting the City of Dover to coordinate the event as needed; the building itself will not be closed for future use until the recommended Dover Park Study is reviewed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Responding to Ms. Blackman, Mr. Dixon announced that the availability of the building will be publicized. Ms. Roxie Smiley-Carter, 320 Broadstair Place, questioned if members of the community will be included in the decision process by serving on the committee. She relayed concerns regarding the reopening of the building, explaining that there was a mold odor and that any mold and mildew issues should be resolved to assure no one gets sick. She also felt that the building needed to be cleaned and sanitized. Concurring, Mrs. Horsey, stated her surprise with the motion to re-open the building, explaining her feeling that the building was not suitable to re-open at this time. She felt that it would take a lot of work to clean the building to make it suitable for activities. It was her hope that, with the motion, it was implied that the building would be made suitable before anyone would be permitted to use it. Mrs. Townshend stated that there is a major moisture issue, which is causing the mold and mildew. She explained that unless the roof is replaced, the moisture cannot be controlled. In addition, there are issues with drainage. When the Study was completed by the Environmental Consultant, she stated that there were no findings that indicated that the building was unsafe. However, Mrs. Townshend indicated that there are certain rooms within the building that will not be opened due to mold issues caused by excessive moisture. She assured members that there would be a thorough cleaning of the building; however, she reminded them that this issue was before them because of the issues with the building, which need to be addressed if the building is going to be maintained for years. Responding to Ms. Smiley-Carter, Mrs. Townshend stated that there are roof leaks located in the back section of the building and there are issues involving rainwater flowing towards the building rather than away from the building, which causes more moisture. Unless the City invests a substantial amount of money, there will continue to be a moisture problem. Mr. Perza explained that, at this time, there was no authorization to correct the problems with the building; therefore, there would be limitations on its use and anyone wishing to use the building would do so with the understanding that it will be used as it is today. Referring to the City-wide survey conducted several years ago, Mr. Byers stated that the John W. Pitts Center at Schutte Park was not built large enough to accommodate the needs of the community. To assist in meeting those needs, he suggested that the City allocate funding for the east side of Dover, since it is known that recreation is needed in that area.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 7 Mr. Perza explained that the reality of the City’s budget is that there are limited resources. At this time, the Planning Department staff will utilize what resources are available to benefit everyone in the City. He stated that Schutte Park seemed to be the focal point for the City’s planning during the past 15 years and that no other areas in Dover, including the east side of Route 13, have received any park amenities during these past years either. Mr. Perza stated that a recommendation not to demolish the building, but to conduct a study, did not necessarily mean that all future recreation investment would be made in Dover Park. He explained that such investment may be divided among parks located in other parts of Dover. As a representative of the Second District, Mr. Perza stated that the communities in the south side of Dover have recreation needs and expressed his belief that communities in other parts of the City also feel that their recreation needs are not being met; therefore, he reiterated that the recommended study would be City-wide. Responding, Mr. Byers felt that, with the exception of Schutte Park, the City’s more populated recreation facility is located on the east side of Dover, explaining that the parks located in other parts of the City are very small. As such, he stated that Dover Park should be the anchor park for the east side of Dover. Ms. Rebecca Gordon, 167 Westhill Drive, Camden, DE, stated her feeling that the City had planned for the demolition of the Dover Park recreation center when Schutte Park was being constructed. Mr. Koenig explained that the City has a Capital Investment Program (CIP) that is available to the public with the Budget on the City’s website. He stated that this portion of the budget outlines the capital investments that the City has planned for the park system, by park, for the next five (5) years. It was his recollection that this investment equates to several million dollars. Mr. Koenig assured members that the CIP did not mention the demolition of the building and that staff presented the idea of demolition when it was determined that there were excessive costs involved with repairing the building, including the replacement of the roof at a cost of $30,000. In previous years, he stated that the City employed staff that could have done the work in-house, which would have saved on these expenses. Prior to putting any investment into the building, staff wanted to know the condition of the building and, as a result, Compliance Environmental, Inc., was retained to do a Building Condition Survey. Upon receipt of their report (Findings from a Building Condition Survey), staff was made aware that there was a need to spend $110,000 just to bring the building up to what would be considered the existing standard. Mr. Koenig assured members that it was never staff’s intention to demolish the building. He explained that the question is whether the City should invest $200,000 in the existing building or take the $200,000 and invest it elsewhere. He reminded members that the City is facing a $7.5M budget short-fall over the next five (5) years. He stated that the reality is that recreation improvements, along with vehicles, street cleaning, parking improvements, etc., often get deferred in order to provide funding for the City’s current operations. Mr. Koenig advised members that there was no public interest in the Dover Park recreation center until the demolition of the building was presented for consideration. He requested that residents make the City aware if there is an issue that is important to the community. Mr. Koenig noted that the City has never taken action against an issue that is important to the community, explaining that if it is important to the community, the City will find the means to support them; however, this support may require an increase in property taxes.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2013 PAGE 8 Mr. Dixon relayed appreciation for all the participation regarding this matter. Mr. Hutchison moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Perza and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:21 p.m. Wallace R. Dixon Chairman WRD/MK/jg/dd/tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS\Committee-Minutes\2013\10-14-2013 PR&CE.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Correspondence Regarding Future Use of the Dover Park Recreation center Attachment #2 - Presentation - Future Use of Dover Park Recreation center

ATTACHMENT #1 PR&CE Committee Meeting of 10/14/2013

ATTACHMENT #2 PR&CE Committee Meeting of 10/14/2013 Ann Marie Townshend, AICP Director, Planning & Community Development, City of Dover PR&CE Committee Meeting of 10/14/2013 ATTACHMENT #2

 Constructed in 1974  Based on Building Condition Survey, update of building systems estimated at approximately $110,475.  Estimate does not include functional updates to building, including upgrades to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act.

 Before proceeding with investment to upgrade/update the building a structural evaluation is strongly recommended.

 In recent years, programming efforts have been largely unsuccessful.  Majority of classes/programs scheduled for Dover Park Recreation Center have been canceled due to low registration.  Primary function of building – staff offices and rental for baby/bridal showers and private parties.

FY05-FY12 Dover Park Recreation Center Class Totals ALL CLASSES YOUTH CLASSES Classes Classes Avg Reg Per Classes Classes Avg Reg Per Total Regs Total Regs Offered Held Class Offered Held Class FY12 5 1 17 17 5 1 17 17 FY11 11 3 7 3.5 0 0 0 0 FY10 16 5 19 3.8 0 0 0 0 FY09 3 2 30 15 0 0 0 0 FY08 24 11 93 8.5 15 10 84 8.4 FY07 28 21 206 9.8 23 19 196 10.3 FY06 26 19 146 7.7 22 15 129 8.6 FY05 31 18 110 6.1 25 15 93 6.2 TOTALS 144 80 628 7.8 90 60 519 8.6 NOTE: Opening of the John W. Pitts Center in spring 2008 reflected in FY2009 beyond.

 Concerns from the community that demolition of recreation center building diminishes recreation opportunities east of US 13.  Demolition proposal does not affect programming and other availability of opportunities to use Dover Park.

 Playground  Pavilions  Basketball Courts  Tennis Courts  Softball Fields  Multipurpose Fields

 What are the recreation demands east of US 13 that are not being met?  How can we best meet them?  Will renovation of the existing building meet the needs? Or is the need something else?  Renovating the existing building would provide a multipurpose room NOT playing courts or other sports related activity area.

 Hire a consultant to do a Parks and Recreation System Plan for the City – including Dover Park.  Plan would address indoor and outdoor recreation needs and guide investment in our parks to help meet the needs system- wide.  Plan would make recommendation on building partnerships to meet recreation needs.

 Maintenance of building and minimal repairs.  Make building available for rentals and for programming.  Utilize partners for provision of programming.  Building would be open only for scheduled events or programming.