[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6678296,"mediaKeyId","2111920-54bbc589f5a999c3bb74eca3e810ebdc","parentId",2111920,"title","Votes at a glance: New Castle County Council, Jan. 14, 2025","audioSeconds",674,"startMs",327000,"endMs",1001000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2111920-54bbc589f5a999c3bb74eca3e810ebdc&start=327&end=1001","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2111920-54bbc589f5a999c3bb74eca3e810ebdc/thumbnail_327000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6678296/New-Castle-County/Delaware/Votes-at-a-glance-New-Castle-County-Council-Jan-14-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678296-10301b0904f2cf6b4ea6dd40fbad2f0d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770679344&Signature=QaGO~JzFtsJfIDg2IZ-qYRtu9vTsXrGvRUkwUAtAguYf3tCTIf-C6pBEQ~7pFxBhY7Ycp9kuhouRPhkJTXQlBmTk5395WgeFRhcNL3mgultk~Hyz4RoaZguPlDUMAXXenMW8FTOPA0yf7x87jnqV8SIUnxOFZtn~7hXBFZ75~XMqOdm-r7IEotImgz0lv4IdVZqpVf7rehaQkMytIgHHWl3nTCslgQTEx0g9oKRLq5xGyK9xHuJV9UKkbpsG09qDPzp8XOJHFyeGnLImZ90O99QGqGjvJNPJgWtoW1I7T1Mdj1fXkY6sTPA1yAfnjPSNF7VANiezVxX6u7ghfRbYpw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Castle County","date","2025-01-14T00:00:00Z","article","At the Jan. 14 New Castle County Council meeting the following notable votes were recorded. Items listed were read into the record and then voted on as noted.

- Resolution 25-019, Walker Farm Industrial Development (two warehouses totaling 837,600 sq ft; subdivide into five lots): approved, roll call 12 yes, 1 no.

- Substitute No. 1 to Ordinance 24-161 (adopt portions of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code): veto override attempt failed (8 yes, 4 no, 1 not voting); override required 10 yes votes.

- Substitute No. 1 to Ordinance 24-8 (impact fees, amend Chapter 40 Article 14): veto override attempt failed (6 yes, 6 no, 1 not voting); override required 10 yes votes.

- Ordinance 24-179 (amend pay plan and class specifications for certain 35-hour classified employees represented by AFSCME Local 1607): approved (roll call 13 yes).

- Ordinance 24-180 (accept donation and appropriate $70,000 for maintenance related to donated land): approved (roll call 12 yes, 1 no).

- Ordinance 24-112 (amend Unified Development Code section 40.26.430 regarding community redevelopment plans and design guidelines): approved (roll call 13 yes).

- Resolution 25-021 through 25-024 and multiple retirement commendations listed on the consent calendar: approved as part of the consent calendar (consent calendar approved earlier by roll call 13 yes).

Several items were tabled to the Jan. 28 meeting at sponsors’ request, including: Resolution 25-020 (plan of Carter Farm) and Ordinance 23-007 (historic-overlay zoning for Carter Farm). The council also read multiple grant-appropriation ordinances into the record for Departmental grants (Ordinances 25-002 through 25-014 among others) and placed them for consideration; many of these were approved on the consent calendar or via subsequent roll calls as read into the record.

All roll-call tallies above are taken from the council clerk’s reading during the Jan. 14 meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","New Castle County - New Castle County Council - Jan 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of key votes taken during the Jan. 14 New Castle County Council meeting, including ordinances, resolutions and veto-override attempts.","taxTitle","New Castle County, Delaware","taxId",12637,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6678299,"Council approves Walker Farm industrial plan after land-use committee review",111,1798000,1909000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2111920-54bbc589f5a999c3bb74eca3e810ebdc&start=1798&end=1909","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2111920-54bbc589f5a999c3bb74eca3e810ebdc/thumbnail_1798000.jpg","/articles/6678299/New-Castle-County/Delaware/Council-approves-Walker-Farm-industrial-plan-after-land-use-committee-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678299-e260800104e99344c1a54de719936dd3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770679344&Signature=GLZimvaaSs82ZrMI7~ncNZozzqNlZo0EXBQYsQq2OoC2mTvK0GRyXM4Qb1N-rIi5i4wfLSO1F~3~fw~7NDEDWISeSs00L1LwKgKdCmPa9znBWyCyvoA8VXO~oFktM5Ddo7p7vecTMMIJn7i55QRKe-8JcqAd4x5~7OD689DNurzCVpPVpSIAHx9qLn7rMGD7Snse9fKMYCvzx82gousnMzKF4ELiL2ZVG2OpwMbUWKLY~7ggIpGYKCw6hnHpm~asu2XvhB5lRwTBX7wWmN7bqi2pT9jL-~HLChn~N06sWSOQBuc8hIbJEWQ-99mtthwHgOiw3k2ywLbQ7oNQcGs94Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","New Castle County Council approved Resolution 25-019 on Tuesday, clearing a major land development plan titled Walker Farm Industrial Development. The resolution passed 12–1 on a roll call.

Resolution 25-019 covers a major land-development plan for the Walker Farm site on the south side of Churchman’s Road (Council District 7). The proposal, as read into the record, would subdivide the property into five lots and construct two warehouse buildings totaling 837,600 square feet.

Councilman Smiley noted the resolution had been discussed and recorded at the land-use committee earlier in the day; after brief remarks on the floor he called for the vote. The clerk conducted a roll-call vote, and the tally was 12 yes, 1 no. Council members who voted in favor included Koneko, Carter, Cartier, Durham, George, Hollins, Kilpatrick, Sheldon, Smiley, Tackett, Toole and Williams Johns; Councilman Street voted no.

The council did not debate conditions or amendments on the floor beyond the committee’s recorded review. The resolution will proceed according to normal post-approval steps in the county’s land-development process.

Action: Resolution 25-019 (Walker Farm Industrial Development, major land development plan for two warehouses totaling 837,600 sq ft; subdivision into five lots) approved by roll-call vote 12 yes, 1 no.","Council approved Resolution 25-019, the Walker Farm industrial development plan proposing two large warehouses and subdivision into five lots, with a 12–1 roll call; the land-use committee discussed the plan earlier in the day.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6678305,"Council fails to override veto on updated impact-fee ordinance amid sharp public debate",4483,4552000,9035000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2111920-54bbc589f5a999c3bb74eca3e810ebdc&start=4552&end=9035","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2111920-54bbc589f5a999c3bb74eca3e810ebdc/thumbnail_4552000.jpg","/articles/6678305/New-Castle-County/Delaware/Council-fails-to-override-veto-on-updated-impact-fee-ordinance-amid-sharp-public-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678305-d95287dfcb9516e8e07d3bc94ab80110/orig.mp4?Expires=1770679344&Signature=SY2E8egyQWOHs-zWRhWAASETHZrhpNVbA4V1fhAg2qWmGAr4MJxOXWvh5ScouFvw8M0hcV2WN7d583lTMkELT4N0KHYMnD-0vAZKOadj-UlnPAWynr26BnJR62UT4I0K3RdpVBGloHjlsZxK7Xdy~T-DnGY7kiF0P0ZBkSS9zFQyLrCiPNFVERaf2cV9CAg6Fi4vYzqT1Hw-LL0OiqlAj0UFW9WHyzBUtCE~xnpCXvVMHYPgCPacEAGUoI12mKtg9RstO626BRAGimx63NFGgwAaO-yrRIQyecfxODC48aKV8d856XO8y3jO9TEdqgVQWZL6iH43hHhCdezmi-DWuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The New Castle County Council did not override County Executive Matthew S. Meyer’s veto of substitute No. 1 to Ordinance 24-8, a measure to update and increase impact fees. The motion to override ended in a 6-6 vote with one member not voting; the override required 10 votes to succeed.

Supporters argued the county has not adjusted impact fees since 1999 and said those fees are needed to fund parks, fire and emergency services, libraries and other infrastructure that new development requires. Council member Knoepko (first reference name from transcript) noted the gap since 1999 and cited the legal authority for impact fees in state law. Council members and members of the public said the shortfall in county revenue and rapid growth, especially south of the canal, meant developers should pay more of the costs their projects create.

Opponents — including builders’ and business groups — urged the council to delay action and work with the incoming county executive on a comprehensive plan. The Home Builders Association of Delaware and the Committee of 100 urged a fuller analysis of fiscal impacts and a collaborative approach with the new administration. Several speakers raised concerns that higher fees would be passed through to homebuyers and could affect housing affordability.

Public testimony during the meeting was lengthy: fire-service representatives argued existing impact fees no longer cover needed equipment and stations; community groups said the proposed increases would be a small share of new-home costs and would protect long-term taxpayers; developers and housing-industry speakers called for a more targeted or progressive fee structure and additional study. Council members debated whether to wait for the new county executive to propose a package or to act now to prevent further erosion of the fee base as new homes are built.

Action: The veto override motion for substitute No. 1 to Ordinance 24-8 failed (roll call: 6 yes, 6 no, 1 not voting). The ordinance remains vetoed.","An effort to overturn the county executive’s veto of a substitute to the Unified Development Code (impact fees) fell short. Supporters said fees are overdue and needed to fund infrastructure; opponents and business groups urged more study and administration input.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6678309,"New Castle County Council fails to override veto of energy-code update",1411,3048000,4459000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2111920-54bbc589f5a999c3bb74eca3e810ebdc&start=3048&end=4459","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2111920-54bbc589f5a999c3bb74eca3e810ebdc/thumbnail_3048000.jpg","/articles/6678309/New-Castle-County/Delaware/New-Castle-County-Council-fails-to-override-veto-of-energy-code-update","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678309-a22196343b70e38a65340cd896f17094/orig.mp4?Expires=1770679344&Signature=o~Gv4o3rsGcPMbOH32B4Ct~Iq77KqHZ4jaLFbX3aPsgDX33bN~5He2n1LorUxrgoo9GaPrEJwr5TT5SsagjhG9dXZQ0QVkC4Y6bzL8s3qiCgyn-ic0-CxfOgJ6N9Hqppf4OGA-CmQ6nVLnyTq7FGVlJbjyLTI6yG2vniQafNmO5nWz9VARQolxklVoKVIO3Qru9QHX68aiTHZFcNC~rjXFJ7fzxBBNHK3IYers3hhzqVGrt065NfhFnAQnwrfXcPZ0FprL3vbOZWYNdNgDT6wpUnlf6RCYNRgwMm8MMDkgcTSs0YrKzcDv482xt~Lh9JeSGzj51IXmSz8l2zUg6VWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","New Castle County Council on Tuesday failed to override County Executive Matthew S. Meyer’s veto of substitute No. 1 to Ordinance 24-161, which would have adopted portions of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code. The roll-call vote was 8 in favor, 4 opposed, and 1 not voting — short of the 10 votes required to override the veto.

Councilwoman (full name) Durham, the ordinance sponsor, told the council the change would bring the county into compliance with a state-mandated timetable and called waiting for other jurisdictions unacceptable. “New Castle County can only be responsible for its own code as required by state law and to bring it into compliance with state law, which is what this ordinance is exactly attempting to do,” she said during council debate.

Supporters during public comment urged the council to override the veto. Anne Kirby, representing the Delaware Council of Green Building United, said she was “stunned” by the veto and argued the county should not delay measures that reduce long-term energy costs. Dustin Thompson, director of Sierra Club Delaware, said the energy code changes had been negotiated for years and said they would save residents money over time.

Opponents, including Jerome Heisler of the Rabil Group, urged caution and said council should consider the ordinance’s effects on affordable housing and study the fiscal impacts further before enacting the changes. The county executive’s veto letter, read into the record earlier in the meeting, said, in part, “Now is not the time to increase the cost of housing in New Castle County.”

The ordinance was originally framed by supporters as a local step to align with a state mandate that local codes be “net-zero energy capable” by specified dates for residential and commercial construction; Councilwoman Durham cited Title 7 provisions that direct the Delaware Energy Office to set procedures for local compliance. After the failed override, the county retains its current local energy code until the council or administration brings a different ordinance back for consideration.

Action: The veto override motion for substitute No. 1 to Ordinance 24-161 failed to reach the 10-vote threshold (roll call: 8 yes, 4 no, 1 not voting).","Council vote fell short of the 10-vote supermajority needed to override a county executive veto of an ordinance to adopt parts of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code; supporters said the change is required to meet state timelines, opponents warned of housing cost impacts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: New Castle County Council, Jan. 14, 2025

Council approves Walker Farm industrial plan after land-use committee review

Council fails to override veto on updated impact-fee ordinance amid sharp public debate

New Castle County Council fails to override veto of energy-code update