CCW Minutes and Attachments 1-3

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on March 27, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding (departed at 6:45 p.m. and returned at 6:47 p.m.). Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (departed at 7:13 p.m. and returned at 7:15 p.m.), Mr. Sudler (arrived at 6:02 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis (departed at 7:11 p.m. and returned at 7:13 p.m.), Mr. Cole (departed at 6:47 p.m. and returned at 6:48 p.m.), Mr. Polce (arrived at 6:04 p.m., departed at 7:02 p.m., returned at 7:04 p.m., departed at 7:52 p.m., and returned at 7:53p.m.), and Mr. Hare. Mr. Lindell was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present (departed at 7:49 p.m.). Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation), Mrs. Doyle and Ms. Scarborough (Utility), and Mr. Shevock and Dr. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Lewis presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Presentation by the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) - Final Report of the Downtown Dover Parking Study Mr. James Galvin, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), advised that completing the parking study had been a two-year process. He stated that it was a very involved process and he thought that they had come up with a good product. Mr. Spencer Finch, Project Manager and Sustainability Leader, Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc., reviewed a presentation entitled “Downtown Dover Parking Study”, dated March 27, 2018, (Attachment #1). Referring to slide 32, Potential On-Street Parking Zone, he indicated that Loockerman Street, Zone 1, should probably have the highest parking rates because it is the prime real estate directly in front of the retail and most destinations. Mr. Finch explained that the blue areas, Zone 2, are the side streets which would provide slightly cheaper parking, and then the green areas, Zone 3, would be areas that are protected for residential. He stated that the Zone 3 areas would have no cost but there would need to be some caretaking to make sure that residents have those parking spots near the residential locations. Mr. Polce thanked Mr. Finch for providing members with a very thorough presentation. He expressed concern regarding the public survey, noting that six (6) to eight (8) responses was not a statistically sound sample size. Mr. Polce asked Mr. Finch to explain the methodology used to engage the public and gather feedback. Responding, Mr. Finch noted that they were disappointed in the response they received to the electronic survey as well. He advised that they held three (3) public meetings and the records of those meetings were also included in the report. Mr. Finch stated that, on average, there were typically between 20 - 40 people in attendance at those meeting and he thought that they did the best job they could in trying to reach out to as many people as they could. He advised that this was in addition to the stakeholder engagement that they did, noting that they reached out to every business within the project area, and others outside as well.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2018 PAGE 2 Mr. Anderson thanked Mr. Finch for the study and asked how he reconciles the idea that there is not a parking problem if there are 16% violations during the peak of the day, explaining that he thought that this indicated that there was a problem with parking in the areas where people want to be. In response, Mr. Finch clarified that the 16% violation was an issue that they spotted related to the parking surfers, explaining that at least 16% of the people parking on peak hours are exceeding the two-hour limits or parking where they’re not supposed to, which creates the problem. He indicated that people say that there is no parking downtown and that is because a lot of the parking is dedicated to permit parking, the parking lots where there is available public parking do not have clear directional signage so people do not know how to get there, and there are parking surfers taking up all the on-street parking instead of parking in a parking lot. Mr. Anderson stated that he was surprised that a parking app was not part of the recommendation. He noted that it would give people a picture of where the parking is and could be developed later on to include payments, and could even be connected to a calendar to show people upcoming events. Responding, Mr. Finch advised that they had looked at that idea and he thought that it was definitely something that the City and others could look at in the future. He stated that he thought that the cost of apps was coming down, and they had seen other communities take them on as a solution or an additional measure to enhance their parking situation. Mr. Finch advised that, right now, the clear message that they want to pass on is that there is some obvious low-hanging fruit that needs to be taken care of first. He explained that if a parking app were instituted now, it would not solve some of the other issues, like the parking surfer problem. Mr. Anderson noted that when Mr. Finch referred to short-term recommendations, it seemed obvious that those are items that could be implemented right away. He asked what Mr. Finch’s definitions are for medium- and long-term. In response, Mr. Finch indicated that Langan works with communities all over the mid-Atlantic and they know that funding, resources, and capacity are limited. He stated that their recommendation would be that short-term items are those that are really critical and should be addressed within a year if possible, medium-term might be one (1) to three (3) years, and long-term more than that. Mr. Finch advised that they realize that due to funding and capacity needs there may not be capacity to implement all of them, and there might be other reasons as well, for instance the community might have issues with one or another. He stated that they would suggest that the City pick three (3) short-term, three (3) medium-term, and three (3) long-term, maybe based on what the community and/or stakeholders want and try to focus on those. Mr. Anderson noted that discussions regarding permit parking and moving people around had always created a great deal of interest among stakeholders in the past. He indicated that some of the parking spaces are contractual, like E-ZPass, and asked if they were part of the discussion and had provided input. Responding, Mr. Finch stated that they definitely were, noting that they reached out and talked to all of them. He advised that they know that no one wants to pay more and that is the first gut reaction that most people have. Mr. Finch explained that if you go someplace and purchase your seat in advance, you might pay $100 and the person whom you sit next to might have paid $1,000, and you get the free benefits as a part of that. He stated that one (1) of the things that they noticed during the outreach is that the public is willing to have that kind of graduated payment in regard to different parking rates, and their short-term recommendation is to start looking at that from the permit parking perspective.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2018 PAGE 3 Mr. Finch advised that they know that this is a difficult issue and that there are some permits that are locked into long-term lease agreements; however, he suggested that they could start talking to E-ZPass and others who have lease agreements, and maybe they would be willing to shift some of their needs to a farther lot. He stated that when they performed the traffic counts they noticed that many of the permit parking lots sit vacant, explaining that although the permits are paid for, the lots are not being used to full capacity. Mr. Finch indicated that if the City started adjusting the pricing strategy, the lease holders would pay more for those who need to be there every day, and they may not use as many spaces, which would release capacity for others. He stated that there is a price distortion because everything is so cheap, explaining that it’s easier for somebody to just buy the permit, even if they’re not using it, and it’s easier for a parking surfer to move their car around in off-street parking every two (2) hours because it’s free. Mr. Finch noted, however, that it has created a huge cost on the retailers on Loockerman Street because when people drive down Loockerman Street and cannot find parking, they drive away and never come back. He stated that these behaviors are creating a huge disadvantage for downtown Dover. Mr. Neil stated that he believes in synergy. Referring to the gateways and signage, he indicated that the City has an opportunity for synergy not only with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP), which has control of certain parking lots, but also with Kent County Tourism, of which he is pleased to sit on the board. Mr. Neil stated that these groups were looking at the same things and he thought they need to be linked. He noted that Expedia, the travel website, had recommended Dover as a weekend getaway because of the efforts of Kent County Tourism, and the signage that affects parking affects the people coming from out of the state and the people who live here. Mr. Neil stated that he thought that the report was terrific. He noted that there is a need to get all of the players involved to make this work for Dover and continue to build the city. Mr. Garfinkel stated that he thought it was an excellent report. He noted that it is not really a predictive study; however, it mentions growth and, as he understood it, while there was not a current need for a vertical parking garage yet, there may be in the future if the recommendations are implemented. He asked if Mr. Finch was saying that if the City follows the recommendations, they will draw more consumers to downtown, which would then draw more people who want to develop downtown. Responding, Mr. Finch confirmed that this was one (1) of the messages from the report. Mr. Slavin, referring to slide 5 depicting the available parking downtown, recalled that Mr. Finch had apologized for the confusion on this slide. He thanked Mr. Finch for his work and stated that he did not mean to demean it; however, this slide portrayed the exact problem, which is that it does not make sense to anyone. Mr. Slavin advised that we can count spaces and do a tabletop exercise, and move this checker here and that one there, but at the end of the day we end up with that. He stated that, although it wasn’t within the purview of the study, he thought it was really critical that some of the most valuable real estate from an economical development perspective is being dedicated to surface parking, which is sometimes achieving 60% in capacity. Mr. Slavin stated that if the City built a vertical parking garage as the solution, as he believes the City should, it could open those properties for development and attract the new businesses that require new spaces. He stated that the benefit would be more ratable property downtown, and the parking garage would pay for itself in the long term probably two (2) times over on a payback period. Mr. Slavin noted that members would continue to hear him ask for a parking garage downtown until one is built, explaining that he thought it was an obligation of the city government to provide this for the infrastructure downtown, just like building libraries and police stations.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2018 PAGE 4 Mr. Sudler asked if the respondent pool of 20 or 40 people was strictly from the City of Dover, Kent County, or outside of the City limits and whether they had live data to support it. Responding, Mr. Finch advised that if members review the sign-in sheets, most of the individuals that responded are either residents or work in downtown Dover. He stated that there were only one (1) or two (2) people from outside the area that they noted at each of the three (3) public outreach meetings. Mr. Sudler asked whether the majority worked or lived in Dover. In response, Mr. Finch stated that he thought that there was a good mix. He advised that some public meetings had more people who worked in Dover and some had more who resided in Dover. Mr. Sudler asked what perplexities may arise in relation to the largest sized parking lot presented in the study from the perspectives of the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), future plans, or economic growth for the City of Dover. Responding, Mr. Finch stated that what they looked at in each of the scenarios was really what would happen to traffic patterns downtown if you located bigger public destination parking at different lots. He advised that they looked at opening up some of the capacity to public parking on North and Loockerman Streets and expanding the Bradford Street lot or building a parking garage there. Mr. Finch stated that if the development was on Bradford Street or Governors Avenue, some of the traffic patterns would be simplified because they are easier to reach from Loockerman Street and different directions. He noted that there are larger capacity streets, this was only a schematic analysis, and they just looked at traffic patterns in general and did not do specific counts. In response to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Finch advised that they did not cross-reference with DelDOT when they looked at the traffic patterns. He stated that this would be done if the decision was made to further develop a parking lot or other facilities. Mr. Sudler asked, in regard to the Langan psychological assessment, what the overall reasons were that people feel uncomfortable about parking on New Street, and whether their concerns were related to lighting, the element of people who live on that street, visible or alleged drug or criminal activity, or the past reputation or stigma associated with that street. He asked if these concerns also applied to connecting streets, such as Reed, Kirkwood, and Queen Streets. Responding, Mr. Finch advised that they had heard all of these concerns from all stakeholders and the public. He noted that, while doing a field review, they personally witnessed police activity on New Street, and there was constant mention of issues with the liquor store when they were there. Mr. Finch stated that he thought that a lot of concerns related to perception, noting that younger individuals may be more comfortable walking to their cars even at night, while others who might need a little assistance, have a disability, or may not be walking to their cars in a group, have issues with walking longer distances, especially to the Governors Avenue lot. Mayor Christiansen commended Mr. Finch on the work done and expressed appreciation. He indicated that he shared the opinion expressed by Mr. Slavin that a parking garage was the ultimate solution. Mayor Christiansen stated that he was not an expert but had memories that parking was an issue in downtown Dover when he was five (5) years old and when he was first elected to Council at the age of 32, and he noted that it is still an issue. He advised that he concurred that the City would have to be unique and dynamic in its solution. Mayor Christiansen advised that Bayhealth Medical Center had issues with parking and had grabbed the bull by the horns. He stated that Bayhealth’s parking issues seemed to disappear and the garage was working out very well, although

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2018 PAGE 5 they still have quite a bit of surface parking. Mayor Christiansen indicated that he agreed that signage could be better; however, he stated that, looking toward the future of downtown Dover and the City of Dover, he would rather expend money for a parking garage and affordable parking than signs. Mr. Finch stated that he thought the City was looking at a chicken and egg problem regarding what would come first to attract development downtown, noting that they would be glad to look at where members feel the threshold is. He stated that, in the case of Bayhealth, they had a demand and it made sense to build the garage. Mr. Finch advised that if the demand showed up, a garage was definitely something that could be looked at. Mayor Christiansen stated that if we build it, they will come. Mr. Lewis commended Mr. Finch on the report. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Finch stated that enforcement should also be looked at. He noted that if any of the rules for parking change, such as wayfinding, rates, or better enforcement of current regulations, enforcement will be required to change behavior. Mr. Finch stated that parking surfers are currently skirting the rules and are not getting caught often enough. He stated that they had talked to the police and resources were limited, noting that there were ways to use resources better. Mr. Finch suggested implementing changes, educating, and then enforcing to make sure that the changes are sticking. Mr. Neil noted that members would certainly have more to consider regarding the report and how they will proceed; however, he recommended acceptance of the report. Mr. Neil moved to recommend acceptance of the final report from the MPO, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects Mr. James Galvin, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), introduced Mr. Reed Macmillan, Executive Director of the MPO. Mr. Macmillan stated that this was his 150th day in his new capacity as Executive Director. He informed members that he had worked from 1999-2002 for Kent County Levy Court in their Planning Services Department and recently retired from New Castle County. Mr. Galvin informed members that the MPO was currently preparing its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for 2019-2022 and several projects located in Dover were included in the State Capital Transportation Program (CTP), including a proposal to look at the intersection of Forest Street (SR8) and Saulsbury Road (SR15). He expressed his belief that this project had been contracted out, with funding for preliminary engineering and right-of-way for the coming fiscal year and construction in 2021, and noted that there would be changes at that intersection fairly soon. Mr. Galvin advised that they were studying the expansion of Saulsbury Road to two (2) lanes in each direction from Forrest Avenue to College Road or beyond, depending on study results. He advised that, although this project did not currently show up in the CTP, it may come up. Mr. Galvin explained that the Loockerman Street/Forest Street Improvements project was in the CTP and progressing, with preliminary engineering this year, right-of-way next year, and construction in 2021. He stated that the Route 13 expansion to three (3) lanes in each direction from

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2018 PAGE 6 Puncheon Run to Lochmeath Way, just below the Lowe’s store, would go to construction in 2021 to 2022. Mr. Galvin noted that the other portion of this project, from Lochmeath to Woodside, is a year or two (2) behind and, although that area is not in the City, it would be an important change. Mr. Galvin stated that new projects that are important to the City had been put in the CTP this year. He noted that there was a proposal to build a Dunkin Donuts and other office space on Forrest Avenue across from the Modern Maturity Center. Mr. Galvin explained that the MPO’s Delaware 8 Concept Plan and Operations Study, which was released in 2008, included a proposal for a small connector road, probably a local road, connecting Route 8 to Commerce Way at the Beiser Boulevard warehouse buildings and to Food Lion at Gateway West. He stated that this project was in the CTP for the out-years, with preliminary engineering in 2021 and 2022. Mr. Galvin explained that because there would be construction at the Dunkin Donuts site, the State’s hand had been forced and they would be looking at this project in the near future. Mr. Galvin stated that Scarborough Road C-D Roads project would extend behind Dover Mall and connect to Dover Downs, Leipsic Road, and the exit from Route 1. He explained that this would be an alternative way to get from the Route 1 exit to Dover Mall and Dover Downs without having to go on Route 13. Mr. Galvin indicated that the State would be looking at this project and doing preliminary engineering in 2021 or 2022, with more intensive looks, right-of-way, and construction occurring in the years beyond. Mr. Galvin advised that College Road reconstruction was included in the CTP; however, there were no items in the time period of the TIP. He explained that the MPO’s TIP goes out to 2022 and the CTP goes out to 2024 and the CTP included funding in the out-years for College Road. Mr. Galvin noted that the MPO had done a bike study, which was an important part of College Road. He advised that College Road does not have any sidewalks on the portion from Kenton Road to McKee Road and expressed his belief that this area will receive the same treatment that Walker Road previously received. Mr. Galvin stated that there was funding for the Crawford Carroll Road Extension behind Lowe’s, noting that the road would extend to parking lots of the commercial enterprises along Route 13 but not all the way to Delaware State University. He indicated that right-of-way acquisition was planned for this year and next year, with construction in 2021 and 2022. Mr. Galvin stated that the West Dover Connector was complete and the State was currently studying Kenton Road. He advised that at the latest public workshop for Kenton Road, they were looking at a roundabout at the corner of Chestnut Grove Road and Kenton Road instead of a stop sign, to avoid delays. Mr. Galvin explained that a large amount of traffic comes from out of town on Kenton Road in the morning, and a roundabout would be a way to keep traffic moving. Mr. Galvin advised that the State was looking at West Street from New Burton Road to North Street, explaining that there are no sidewalks on this stretch and there is a need for bike lanes. He noted that there would be preliminary engineering for this project in 2021 and 2022, with right-of-way acquisition in 2022. Mr. Anderson noted that not having an interchange off Route 1 for the Garrison Oak Technology Park had cost the City a fair number of jobs and asked if there were any thoughts on this. Mr. Galvin stated that he had not seen anything to indicate that the Delaware Department of

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2018 PAGE 7 Transportation (DelDOT) was looking at this. He noted that there is currently a partial interchange at Route 8, and DelDOT would be hard pressed to have another interchange essentially one (1) major street north of that. Mr. Galvin stated that the MPO had looked at the possibility of running some kind of road behind, from Leipsic down to White Oak. He stated his belief that there had always been a proposal to run a connector road from Route 8 somewhere along the right-of-way of Route 1 to get to White Oak Road, so that there would be a connection from the highway to the industrial park. He indicated that he had not heard about this in quite a while and suggested making sure that DelDOT knows that the City is interested in an interchange, if this is the case. Update - Safety Issues at the Library Mr. Lewis suggested deferring this matter since Mr. Lindell had requested it and was unfortunately unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Neil moved to defer consideration of this matter, seconded by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Polce noted that library staff was present and suggested that they be allowed the opportunity to provide an update. Mr. Lewis asked the library staff if they could email members a written update regarding safety issues at the library. As a point of order, Mr. Sudler suggested that the motion to defer be rescinded. Mr. Neil agreed to rescind the motion; however, Mr. Anderson stated that he was not willing to rescind. The motion to defer consideration of this matter carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Anderson, Neil, Lewis, Slavin, Garfinkel, and Shelton), four (4) no (Sudler, Cole, Polce, and Hare), and one (1) absent (Lindell). Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Cole presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Presentation - Electric Rate Design and Cost of Services Study Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reminded members Burns & McDonnell did the City’s rate design and cost of services study for years; however, this study was done by a new firm, NewGen Strategies & Solutions, given the concerns of the City’s electric rates with some of the customers for next fiscal year. She advised that this was a preliminary report which would be finalized and

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2018 PAGE 8 brought back with the rates at the budget hearings. Mrs. Mitchell noted that there would also be discussions with the City’s customers regarding the study. Mr. Joe Mancinelli, General Manager, Energy Practice, NewGen Strategies & Solutions, reviewed a presentation entitled “City of Dover - Cost of Service and Rate Design Study”, dated March 27, 2018 (Attachment #2). Mr. Slavin thanked Mr. Mancinelli for the presentation and cautioned members to heed Mr. Mancinell’s words about the difference between using percentages and raw dollars at times. Mr. Slavin explained that someone could walk away thinking that their electric bill is going up 5% this year, when that person’s electric bill will go up $12 over the course of the year if they’re a low user. He advised that members need to make sure their messaging is as synced up as the rest of this study and that they know what their talking points are as they roll this out. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Mancinelli confirmed that they are looking at averaging this over a five-year time period. Mr. Anderson asked what year the 2% change in residential rates would take effect. In response, Mr. Mancinelli explained that the amounts listed under the proposed column on each slide depict the rates that would become effective this year. He advised that the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) that is in there, the .0038 for the Purchase Power Agreement (PPA), is an average amount that the City can afford to give back based on the forecast to the extent that it is different. Mr. Mancinelli explained that the current PCA is much higher and, to the extent that it is different in July, members would see a different effective increase. He stated that the Phase 2 and Phase 3 rates are not included in the presentation. Mr. Mancinelli noted that he thought that the proposal would be to eventually ask for approval of just Phase 1 and then see how the future plays out. He advised that the cost of service is based on the cost of serving the customer class over the entire five (5) years and is the same for every class. Mr. Sudler asked, in regard to the residential class, if there were any concerns regarding the City’s infrastructure impeding the positive outcome of the City’s profit rate that can be addressed in the short term. Responding, Mr. Mancinelli stated that the design of the system does impact the cost; however, they have not looked at the design to determine if it could be different or should be different. He advised that it is serving its purpose now, and they only looked at the cost. Rojan Meadows Sanitary Sewer Territory Transference Members were advised that, in 2003, the Rojan Meadows subdivision was proposed within the City of Dover. The development went through the City’s Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and received initial approval from the Planning Commission. The original intent of this development was to install gravity sanitary sewer mains and a pump station that would be dedicated to the City of Dover. The project was tabled in 2010 and Rojan Meadows did not receive final approval from the City of Dover. The developer has revived this project and is intent on obtaining final approval for the Rojan Meadows development and one (1) aspect of the final approval is to provide sanitary sewer service to all proposed lots. The proposal is to transfer the sanitary sewer territory of the Rojan Meadows subdivision, and any adjacent lots to be served by this system, to Kent County for

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2018 PAGE 9 ownership and maintenance. Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed the background and analysis for this item. Staff recommended granting conditional approval to transfer the Rojan Meadows sanitary sewer territory to Kent County pending the developer’s ability to obtain all necessary approvals and authorizations as required by the City. Mr. Hare moved to recommend granting conditional approval to transfer the Rojan Meadows sanitary sewer territory to Kent County pending the developer’s ability to obtain all necessary approvals and authorizations as required by the City, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Anderson asked if the User Agreement modification should be based on Kent County standards since the county has everything to do with this, including running and maintaining the pump station, or if it has to be run on the standards for the City system. Responding, Mrs. Duca explained that the changes that have to be made to the User Agreement specifically relate to how flow is determined at the Dover East Pump Station since part of the City flow still goes into there. She stated that currently there is only a deduction for the mobile homes that the County flows into the Dover East Pump Station, and the agreement would have to allow for appropriate calculations for single-family residences to go through, so that the City would be receiving the appropriate deduction from the total flow from the station which determines what will be charged. Mr. Anderson asked if that requirement would be based on the County or City requirements. In response, Mrs. Duca advised that the County code specifically identifies what an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) is for a mobile home versus a single-family and the City only references the equivalent of a single-family; however, they do coincide with each other. In response to Mr. Neil, Mrs. Duca advised that if there are any costs related to the transference of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), they would have to be borne by the developer. The motion to recommend granting conditional approval to transfer the Rojan Meadows sanitary sewer territory to Kent County pending the developer’s ability to obtain all necessary approvals and authorizations as required by the City, as recommended by staff, was unanimously carried. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Hare presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2018 PAGE 10 Status of Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and Pension Funds Due to time constraints, this item was deferred during the meeting of March 13, 2018. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the General Pension, Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) - Retirement Health Insurance, and Police Pensions Post Retirement Benefit Liabilities as of July 1, 2017 for the Plan Year June 30, 2019. She stated that the General Pension unfunded liability total is down to $20M and is funded at 67.1% in total, noting that in FY 16 it was funded at 60.7%, so it is up 7% in funding, which is very good. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the report also included the percentages that have to be put into payroll to put the actuarially determined contribution into the plans each year. Referring to the General Fund, she advised that the normal cost is 4.21% in total, the amortization of the unfunded liability and the interest cost is 44.05%, for a total of 48.26%, which she separated out so members could see how much the unfunded liability is costing the City each year as a percentage of payroll. Mrs. Mitchell noted that, in total, the percentage of payroll for the General Fund is 58% versus 29% for the Electric Fund, explaining that the City is more fully funded with the Electric Fund than the General Fund. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the OPEB - Retirement Health Insurance is 41.9% funded in liability, which has improved from FY 16 when it was funded at 33.7%. She advised that the City had a lot of help in the last year with the market improving the investments. Mrs. Mitchell noted that the actuarially determined contribution for OPEB is 13.7% for the General Fund, 2.20% for the Water/Wastewater Fund, and 2.00% for the Electric Fund, for a total of 6.4%. She explained that a lot of that percentage is driven by the police because they can retire earlier. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that the City has to put a flat lump sum amount into the City of Dover Police Pension Plan and the City is also part of the State of Delaware Police Pension Plan. She noted that the City of Dover Police Pension Plan had improved 10% from last year, increasing from 63% to 73% funded. Mrs. Mitchell advised that the Police Pension percentage of payroll is 16.68%. Project Carry-Forward Budget Balances and Proposed Ordinance #2018-02 - FY 2017-2018 Budget Ordinances - First Amendment Due to time constraints, this item was deferred during the meeting of March 13, 2018. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis for the project carry-forward budget balances and Proposed Ordinance #2018-02 - FY 2017-2018 Budget Ordinances - First Amendment. She explained that the proposed budget amendments bring forward the carry-forward balances from last fiscal year as well as projects carried forward, and any other adjustments that have been made during the year. Staff recommended approval of the proposed budget amendments for Fiscal Year 2018 and adoption of Ordinance #2018-02. In response to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Mitchell repeated that the transfer to the Parkland Reserve included $2,809 from Mr. Sudler’s Parkland Revitalization fundraising.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2018 PAGE 11 Mr. Neil, referring to Proposed Ordinance #2018-02 - FY 2017-2018 Budget Ordinances - First Amendment, page 1, General Fund, Cash Receipt Summary for 2017-2018, asked for additional details regarding how the $1.47M increase from the original budget to the revised budget happened. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that $214,000 was revenues that came in over budget, $1.1M was the departmental expenses, more than $600,000 of which was from attrition for vacant positions, wages and benefits, there were also materials and supplies, and all of the other expenses came in under budget. She stated, for example, that the Customer Service Department was $204,000, reminding members that Council approved additional staff; however, it took a while to get those additional employees onboard. Mrs. Mitchell advised that some of the larger amounts included Grounds Maintenance at $159,000 and Streets at $126,000, $80,000 of which she put back in next year. She explained that it was pretty much the attrition and savings in the departments’ expenses. Mr. Slavin stated that he did not believe that Mrs. Mitchell had answered Mr. Neil’s question, indicating that the answer was because the City and members are good at what they do now, Mrs. Mitchell is good at what she does, and the Finance Department is good at what they do. He noted that they are also transparent and there is a higher degree of trust among all of them as colleagues than there had been at any time that he had been on Council, so the numbers they were hearing are true numbers that they can rely on. Mr. Lewis moved to recommend approval of the proposed budget amendments for Fiscal Year 2018 and adoption of Ordinance #2018-02, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Grant Application Procedure Revisions Ms. Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that during a recent US Department of Justice (USDOJ) grant monitoring visit regarding Police Department grants, the City was requested to revise City of Dover Grant Application Procedure No. 317 and the Police Department General Order 17 Budget & Purchasing Procedures to add some additional controls and procedures to monitor sub awards and subrecipient grant funding. Ms. Peddicord reviewed the proposed procedure revisions (Attachment #3). Staff recommended approval of the procedure revisions as requested. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Diversity and Inclusion Study Request for Proposal (RFP) Due to time constraints, this item was deferred during the meeting of March 13, 2018. A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Diversity and Inclusion was issued on October 31, 2017 with a bid opening on November 29, 2017. Five (5) submissions were received. After the closing, the University of Delaware was contacted to determine their interest in the project. Following discussions with the University, they submitted their response on February 8, 2018. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised members Mrs. Kim Hawkins, Human Resources Director, had reviewed all of the proposals and all of them had come in over budget. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she had moved money in Proposed Ordinance #2018-02 - FY 2017-2018 Budget Ordinances - First Amendment to cover this expense if Council desires to move forward with the

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2018 PAGE 12 study. She stated that she felt that Kaleidoscope Group from Chicago was the best and most qualified and their proposal, in the amount of $97,400, would cover the City’s needs. Staff recommended authorizing funding up to $97,400 to support the full scope of the RFP. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Timothy A. Slavin Council President TAS/TM/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2018\03-27-2018 CCW Minutes.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - A presentation entitled “Downtown Dover Parking Study”, dated March 27, 2018, provided by Mr. Spencer Finch, Project Manager and Sustainability Leader, Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. Attachment #2 - A presentation entitled “City of Dover - Cost of Service and Rate Design Study”, dated March 27, 2018, provided by Mr. Joe Mancinelli, General Manager, Energy Practice, NewGen Strategies & Solutions Attachment #3 - Revised City of Dover Grant Application Procedure No. 317 and Police Department General Order 17 Budget & Purchasing Procedures

ATTACHMENT #1 Downtown Dover Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 03/27/2018 Parking Study Presented to the Dover City Council March 27, 2018

Downtown WhatDover Parking Study is the Project? – “Too much?” – “Too little?” – “Too pricy?” – “Too cheap?” – “Easy to Understand?” – “Convenient to where I want to go?”

What is the Project? = approximately 6.5 acres

What is the Project? Private Parking Lots Take this much space Public Parking Lots Take this much space Off-Street Parking Takes this much space = approximately 6.5 acres

What is the Project?

Parking Count Findings • 1,762 total parking spaces • On-Street Parking (607 spaces) – Peak Hour – 12:30 to 1:30 pm – Peak Occupancy Rate – 75% – Peak Violation Rate – 16% • Off-Street Public Parking (459 spaces) – Peak Hour – 11 am – Noon – Peak Occupancy Rate – 63%

Peak Occupancy Per Lot 63% 62% 21% 83% 65% 84%

ISSUES What is the Project? – Not easy to understand – Cost of Parking – Perception of Safety – Sense of Place

Cost of DOVER Parking: Wilmington (Per Hour / On Street) Newark Annapolis, MD Media, PA

Cost of DOVER Parking: Wilmington (Per Day / 12 x Public Lots) Newark 8x Annapolis, MD 13 x Media, PA

Current DOVER Cost of Parking DAILY: (Per Day / Public Lots) (For 2 Hours / On-Street)

Current Newark Cost of Parking DAILY: (Per Day / Public Lots) (Per Hour / On-Street)

PUBLIC What isOUTREACH the Project? – 3 Public Meetings – Newspaper Coverage – Online Survey

Questions from Public Outreach: How Would You Spend Your ? Quick Errand , but 20 mins only to Downtown Dover / hr, Off-Street All day, Off-Street Day-long Stay All day, On-Street, but moving car every 2 hours All day, On-Street

MORE FOR 2-hour PARKING ON-STREET ON-STREET EVEN MORE THAN $4 FOR ON-STREET

Potential Improvement Scenario 1 STRATEGY: Shift some permit parking to Bradford and Governor’s Avenue Lots, Open Up Loockerman Way (or North Street) Lot to public parking

Potential Improvement Scenario 2 STRATEGY: New State Street Alley Lot offers approximately 44 new parking spaces.

Potential Improvement Scenario 3 STRATEGY: Shift some permit parking to Bradford and Governor’s Avenue Lots, Increase size of Bradford Street Lot, Open Up Loockerman Way (or North Street) Lot to public parking

Potential Improvement Scenario 4 STRATEGY: Shift some permit parking to Bradford and Governor’s Avenue Lots, Open Up Loockerman Way (or North Street) Lot to public parking, then build Bradford Street Garage for both Public and Permit Parking.

How Would You Spend Your ? Scenario 1 Less than $100k Scenario 2 $1M to $2M Scenarios 1 and 2 $1M to $2M Scenario 3 $1M to $2M Scenarios 2 and 3 $2M to $4M Scenario 4 Over $10 M

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS What is the Project? Land Use Number of Parking Spots Required Original Demand Scenario 1 – Scenario 2 – Scenario 3 – Model Residential Residential Residential and Growth, no new Growth, new Office Growth, parking parking according new parking to zoning according to zoning Commercial 414 414 414 414 Office/Industrial 823 823 823 1,107 Residential 260 688 688 688 TOTAL 1,498 1,925 1,925 2,209 Existing Supply 1,762 1,762 2,082 2,415 Calculated Raw Peak 85% 109% 92% 91% Occupancy Calculated Time of Day / 60% 79% 67% 58% Parking Type Peak Occupancy

CONCLUSIONS What is the Project? – Inefficient distribution of parking capacity • Some lots over 80% occupancy • Some lots below 40% – Confusing wayfinding – Long-range planning –BUT, very important: willingness of public to try something NEW

RECOMMENDATIONS What is the Project? – Short-Term – Medium-Term – Long-Term

Short-Term Recommendations What is the Project? LOW-HANGING FRUIT 1. Wayfinding – Parking Lot Directional Signage 2. Wayfinding – Private Parking Lot Signage allowing evening public parking 3. Pilot One-Year New Pricing 4. Reconfigure existing lots (paint) 5. Shop owner / employee program to discourage on- street parking 6. Incentive campaign

Medium-Term Recommendations What is the Project? 1. Wayfinding – Downtown Dover Destination and WELCOME Signage 2. Metered Parking on Loockerman Street 3. Pilot second phase of pricing strategy 4. Streetscape and lighting improvements 5. Promote Alternative Transportation Options 6. Pay by cell phone

Long-Term Recommendations What is the Project? 1. NEW GATEWAY to Downtown Dover 2. Long-Term Visitor Promotion Program 3. New State Street Alley Lot 4. New Parking Garage once development reaches critical mass

Wayfinding and Signage

Wayfinding and Signage

Potential On-Street Parking Zones

Streetscape and Safety

Gateways

Gateways

Gateways

New Technologies X Online Payments Smart Meters In-Car Meters Kiosk Meters Car Sharing Pay by Phone Solar PV Bike Sharing and more…

Potential Cost Range of Improvements Short Term (Low-Hanging Fruit): 1. Wayfinding – Parking Lot Directional Signage – $42k (Grant applciation submitted – DDP) 2. Wayfinding – Private Parking Lot Signage allowing evening public parking – est. $2k - $5k (PPP) 3. Pilot One-Year New Pricing – No cost 4. Reconfigure existing lots (paint) – est. $2k - $15k (DDP) 5. Shop owner / employee program to discourage on-street parking – No cost 6. Incentive campaign – None to $5k

Potential Cost Range of Improvements Medium Term: 1. Wayfinding – Downtown Dover Destination and WELCOME Signage – est. $50k (DelDOT?) 2. Metered Parking on Loockerman Street – est. $30k - $60k 3. Pilot second phase of pricing strategy – No cost 4. Streetscape and lighting improvements , including NEW CONNECTOR ALLEY – cost not estimated, but probably in the $100k - $400k range 5. Promote Alternative Transportation Options – est. $0 to $10k 6. Pay by cell phone – est. $50k + monthly fee to service provider

Potential Cost Range of Improvements Long Range: 1. NEW GATEWAYS to Downtown Dover – cost not estimated, but probably in the $100k - $400k range per gateway created / enhanced 2. Long-Term Visitor Promotion Program – cost not estimated 3. New State Street Alley Lot – cost not estimated, but probably in the $500k + range 4. New Parking Garage once development reaches critical mass – cost not estimated, but likely more than $10 million

VISION Dover is on its way to becoming a vital destination, a great place to be, work, live, and play. Parking can be used more efficiently Wayfinding will help parking – but also help Dover’s sense of place and community Streetscape, lighting, and Gateways will help build on that Pricing strategy can help parking work better Communicate, communicate, communicate

THANK YOU! For more information, please contact: Eddie Diaz, City of Dover ediaz@dover.de.us James Galvin, Dover/Kent County MPO James.Galvin@doverkentmpo.org Spencer Finch, Langan Engineering sfinch@langan.com Paul Vernon, KSK pvernon@ksk1.com Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

Technical Excellence Practical Experience Client Responsiveness

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 03/27/2018 March 27, 2018 City of Dover – Cost of Service And Rate Design Study 1

Agenda • Cost of Service / Rate Design Overview • Revenue Requirement • Cost of Service • Rate Design – Rate Design Proposal • Proposed Rates and Rate Impacts • Discussion NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 2

Cost of Service and Rate Design Overview

Steps in the Analytical Ratemaking Process Determine the revenue Revenue Requirement STEP 1 requirements of the utility Determination Unbundle costs by functions STEP 2 and services (production, transmission, distribution, etc.) Classify costs (demand, energy, STEP 3 customer costs, etc.) Cost Allocation Allocate cost among customer STEP 4 classes STEP 5 Design rates Rate Design NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 4

Revenue Requirement

Revenue Requirement • Revenue Requirement based on five year “Test Year” (FY 2019 – FY 2023) – Rely on City’s financial forecast • Start with FY 2017 expenses • Cash basis – Includes system investments for capital – Recognizes existing reserve levels / policies – Budget projections for operating expenses • Includes TEA costs for future fuel / power NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 6

Revenue Requirement ($000) Item 2017 Cash Adjustments Test Year Operation and Maintenance Expense Dover Production $7,150 $165 $7,315 PJM Purchased Power $36,256 $4,683 $40,939 Transmission & Distribution $5,285 $690 $5,975 Metering / Customer $1,447 $216 $1,662 Admin & General $4,432 $842 $5,274 Subtotal O&M Expenses $54,569 $6,596 $61,165 Debt Service $1,611 ($2) $1,609 Transfer to General Fund $10,000 $0 $10,000 Appropriations to Reserve Funds $11,402 ($5,050) $6,352 Subtotal Revenue Requirement $77,582 $1,544 $79,126 Less Other Income ($922) $134 ($788) Total Revenue Requirement $76,660 $1,678 $78,338 Revenue at Current Rates* $80,624 $2,112 $82,735 Over / (Under) $3,964 $4,397 Difference (%) 4.92% 5.31% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 7

Revenue Requirement Test Year Revenue Requirement by Cost by Function (%) Street Ligthing, Function ($000) Customer, 3% 0.1% Distribution, 13% Production $60,789 Transmission , Transmission $4,778 6% Distribution $9,802 Customer $2,943 Street Lighting $25 Total Cost of Service $78,338 Production , 77% Production Transmission Distribution Customer Street Ligthing NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 8

Revenue Requirement Test Year Revenue Requirement by Cost Cost by Classification (%) Classification ($000) Customer , 6% Demand, 50% Demand Related Costs that vary with system capacity $39,092 Energy Costs that vary with energy (kWh) sold $34,868 Customer Costs that vary with number of customers $4,378 Total Cost of Service $78,338 Energy, 45% Demand Energy Customer NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 9

Cost of Service

Cost of Service Total System Load by Month 200,000 150,000 kW 100,000 50,000 - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month System Peak Residential • 2017 System Peak ~ 162.8 MW • Peak in June, July, August, September • 4 CP Cost Allocator • Residential Class Peak ~ 66.6 MW • Peak in June, July, August, September • 4 NCP Cost Allocator NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 11

Cost of Service – Test Year (Base Rates) % Cost of Current Proposed Change Service Revenues Difference Revenues Difference (f)= Class (a) (b) (c)=(b-a) (d) (e)=(c-a) (d/b)-1 Residential $28,937,503 $26,916,943 ($2,020,559) $27,468,331 ($1,469,171) 2% Small Commercial $4,073,885 $3,002,651 ($1,071,233) $3,057,524 ($1,016,361) 2% Medium Commercial $4,923,543 $5,308,542 $384,998 $5,056,954 $133,411 -5% Large Commercial $15,506,941 $18,197,969 $2,691,028 $16,944,837 $1,437,896 -7% Primary $15,681,040 $18,344,980 $2,663,940 $17,097,531 $1,416,490 -7% Transmission $8,220,137 $9,289,643 $1,069,506 $8,654,632 $434,495 -7% Other Tran $191,020 $421,017 $229,996 $391,884 $200,863 -7% Lighting $803,592 $1,208,940 $405,348 $1,208,940 $405,348 0% Total $78,337,661 $82,690,685 $4,353,024 $79,880,632 $1,542,972 -3.4% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 12

Cost of Service Average Cost of Service ($/kWh) $0.0000 $0.0200 $0.0400 $0.0600 $0.0800 $0.1000 $0.1200 $0.1400 $0.1600 Small Commercial $0.1522 Residential Service $0.1394 Medium Commercial $0.1105 Lighting $0.0987 Large Commercial $0.0957 Primary Service $0.0830 Transmission $0.0734 Cost of Service ($/kwh) Excludes PCA NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 13

Rate Design

Rate Design Overview COS and Rate Making Cost of Service vs. Rate Making Cost accounting, allocate utility Policy decisions, used to incentivize costs with use, classification specific behavior, rates do not have to precisely match cost of service but should move towards COS Utility Functions: Power Supply Distribution Customer (Demand and (Demand and (Customer Energy Customer Components) Components) Components) NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 15

Rate Design Overview Rate Making Best Practice • Align a utility’s costs with appropriate classifications (e.g. demand, energy, customer) – Costs categorized as fixed and variable • Rates should fairly reflect the cost of service, but policy should be considered • Rates should incentivize customers to use utility plant efficiently NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 16

Rate Design Overview Objectives • Reduction in Revenue Requirement – Reduction contribution to reserves • Draw down Working Capital reserves through Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA) – Gradual decrease in PPA credit over 5 year period • Adjust class revenues to better align with cost causation • Implement changes over 5 year period – Rate changes for July 1 for FY19, FY21, FY23 – Rate change % are constant for each FY NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 17

Rate Proposal

Rate Proposal – Residential Service Class Characteristics Residential Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 21,187 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 207,590,560 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 732 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 4.65 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 26% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 19

Rate Proposal – Residential Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate - Residential Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) $7.50 $8.46 $12.53 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.1203 $0.1206 $0.0466 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PPA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW)* $0.00 $0.00 $16.89 Average Monthly Bill** $98.89 $103.94 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.1211 $0.1273 $0.1356 Difference (%) 5.11% 11.93% * No Demand Charge for Residential Customers **Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 20

Rate Proposal – Residential Service Rate Curve Analysis Accounts Current Proposed Cost of Service $0.1900 6000 $0.1800 5000 $0.1700 4000 NO. ACCOUNTS $0.1600 $/KWH $0.1500 3000 $0.1400 2000 $0.1300 1000 $0.1200 $0.1100 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 KWH/MONTH NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 21

Rate Proposal – Residential Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Average Monthly Increase (Decrease) 7000 6000 5000 Median: $4.27/Month # Customers 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 $0.96 $2.22 $3.48 $4.75 $6.01 $7.27 $8.53 $9.79 $11.06 $12.32 $13.58 $14.84 $16.10 $17.36 $18.63 $19.89 $21.15 $22.41 $23.67 $24.94 $26.20 $27.46 $28.72 $29.98 $31.25 $/Month NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 22

Rate Proposal – Residential Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Percentage Change in Annual Bills 12000 10000 Median: 5.2% 8000 # Customers 6000 4000 2000 0 4.57% 4.91% 5.25% 5.59% 5.94% 6.28% 6.62% 6.97% 7.31% 7.65% 7.99% 8.34% 8.68% 9.02% 9.37% 9.71% 10.05% 10.39% 10.74% 11.08% 11.42% 11.77% 12.11% 12.45% 12.80% %/Year NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 23

Rate Proposal – Small Commercial Service Class Characteristics Small Commercial Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 2,353 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 26,763,760 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 854 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 4.60 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 28% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 24

Rate Proposal – Small Commercial Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate - Small Commercial Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) - 1 Phase $7.50 $8.39 $27.58 Customer Charge ($/Month) - 3 Phase $22.50 $23.39 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.1004 $0.1006 $0.0466 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PPA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW)* $0.00 $0.00 $17.16 Average Monthly Bill** $98.23 $103.78 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.1036 $0.1095 $0.1484 Difference (%) 5.65% 43.17% * No Demand Charge for Small Commercial Customers **Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 25

Rate Proposal – Small Commercial Service Rate Curve Analysis Accounts Current Proposed Cost of Service $0.4300 450 $0.3800 400 350 $0.3300 300 NO. ACCOUNTS $0.2800 250 $/KWH 200 $0.2300 150 $0.1800 100 $0.1300 50 $0.0800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 KWH/MONTH NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 26

Rate Proposal – Small Commercial Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Percentage Change in Annual Bills 500 450 Median: 6.0% 400 350 # Customers 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 5.34% 5.61% 5.88% 6.15% 6.42% 6.68% 6.95% 7.22% 7.49% 7.76% 8.03% 8.29% 8.56% 8.83% 9.10% 9.37% 9.64% 9.90% 10.17% 10.44% 10.71% 10.98% 11.25% 11.51% 11.78% %/Year NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 27

Rate Proposal – Medium Commercial Service Class Characteristics Medium Commercial Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 595 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 44,548,720 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 6,176 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 22 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 39% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 28

Rate Proposal – Medium Commercial Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate – Medium Commercial Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) - 1 Phase $7.50 $11.73 $28.77 Customer Charge ($/Month) - 3 Phase $22.50 $26.73 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.0677 $0.0658 $0.0487 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PPA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW) $13.95 $13.40 $16.41 Average Monthly Bill* $689.56 $699.39 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.1106 $0.1122 $0.1067 Difference (%) 1.43% (3.55%) *Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 29

Rate Proposal – Medium Commercial Service Rate Curve Analysis Accounts Current Proposed Cost of Service $0.3400 180 160 $0.2900 140 $0.2400 120 NO. ACCOUNTS 100 $/KWH $0.1900 80 $0.1400 60 40 $0.0900 20 $0.0400 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% LOAD FACTOR NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 30

Rate Proposal – Medium Commercial Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Percentage Change in Annual Bills 60 Median: 1.4% 50 40 # Customers 30 20 10 0 -2.73% -2.48% -2.24% -1.99% -1.75% -1.51% -1.26% -1.02% -0.77% -0.53% -0.29% -0.04% 0.20% 0.45% 0.69% 0.93% 1.18% 1.42% 1.67% 1.91% 2.15% 2.40% 2.64% 2.89% 3.13% %/Year NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 31

Rate Proposal – Large Commercial Service Class Characteristics Large Commercial Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 448 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 162,084,240 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 28,435 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 85 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 46% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 32

Rate Proposal – Large Commercial Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate - Large Commercial Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) $22.50 $30.11 $34.43 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.0677 $0.0647 $0.0466 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PPA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW) $13.90 $13.38 $16.50 Average Monthly Bill* $3,130 $3,142 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.1037 $0.1041 $0.0918 Difference (%) 0.40% (11.46%) *Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 33

Rate Proposal – Large Commercial Service Rate Curve Analysis Accounts Current Proposed Cost of Service $0.2900 100 90 $0.2400 80 70 NO. ACCOUNTS $0.1900 60 $/KWH 50 $0.1400 40 30 $0.0900 20 10 $0.0400 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% LOAD FACTOR NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 34

Rate Proposal – Large Commercial Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Percentage Change in Annual Bills 200 180 Median: 0.6% 160 140 # Customers 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -3.21% -2.26% -1.32% -0.37% 0.57% 1.52% 2.46% 3.41% 4.35% 5.30% 6.24% 7.19% 8.14% 9.08% 10.03% 10.97% 11.92% 12.86% 13.81% 14.75% 15.70% 16.64% 17.59% 18.53% 19.48% %/Year NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 35

Rate Proposal – Primary Commercial Service Class Characteristics Primary Commercial Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 43 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 188,909,620 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 385,950 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 957 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 56% NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 36

Rate Proposal – Primary Commercial Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate - Primary Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) $15.00 $19.66 $37.71 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.0676 $0.0654 $0.0456 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PPA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW) $11.25 $10.67 $15.68 Average Monthly Bill* $32,448 $32,831 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.0886 $0.0896 $0.0792 Difference (%) 1.18% (10.60%) *Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 37

Rate Proposal – Primary Commercial Service Rate Curve Analysis Accounts Current Proposed Cost of Service $0.2900 8 7 $0.2400 6 NO. ACCOUNTS $0.1900 5 $/KWH 4 $0.1400 3 2 $0.0900 1 $0.0400 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% LOAD FACTOR NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 38

Rate Proposal – Primary Commercial Service Rate Impact Analysis - % Change (Phase I) Percentage Change in Annual Bills 7 6 Median: 0.9% 5 # Customers 4 3 2 1 0 -5.00% -4.71% -4.41% -4.12% -3.82% -3.53% -3.24% -2.94% -2.65% -2.36% -2.06% -1.77% -1.47% -1.18% -0.89% -0.59% -0.30% 0.00% 0.29% 0.58% 0.88% 1.17% 1.47% 1.76% 2.05% %/Year NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 39

Rate Proposal – Transmission Service Class Characteristics Transmission Class Characteristics (Test Year) Class Meters: 4 Class Annual Sales (kWh): 112,077,720 Average Monthly Sales per Customer (kWh): 2,385,305 Average Monthly Demand per Customer (kW): 4,413 Average Monthly Load Factor (%): 32% Transmission Class: DAFB, Kraft, P&G and White Oak Solar NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 40

Rate Proposal – Transmission Commercial Service Phase I Rate Changes / Current Rates / COS Rates Item/Rate - Transmission Current Proposed (Phase 1) COS Customer Charge ($/Month) $0.00 $0.00 $46.76 Energy Charge ($/kWh) $0.06370 $0.06180 $0.0450 Green Energy Charge - GEF ($/kWh) $0.00018 $0.00018 $0.00 PPA Charge ($/kWh) ($0.0086) ($0.0038) ($0.0038) Demand Charge ($/kW) $10.50 $9.80 $14.21 Average Monthly Bill* $173,709 $177,369 Average Rate ($/kWh) $0.0743 $0.0759 $0.0695 Difference (%) 2.11% (6.50%) *Excludes Public Utility Tax Based on 2017 Billing Database Analysis NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 41

Rate Proposal – Transmission Service (Supplemental) • Transmission – Federal – Maintain discount on energy ($0.002/kWh) • 69 kV Transmission for NRG 88 MW EWG System Peak: May: 4:00 PM June: 3:00 PM July: 4:00 PM Aug: 4:00 PM Sept: 5:00 PM Oct: 4:00 PM NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 42

Rate Proposal – Transmission Service (Supplemental) • 69 kV Transmission for NRG 88 MW EWG – Currently on Transmission Rate • $10.50 / kW • $0.06370 / kWh – Proposed Rate • $7.96 / kW • $0.0618 / kWh – Implement annual on-peak penalty NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 43

Other Rates • Business Retention Rate – Maintain discount • Private Outdoor Lighting – No change to lighting rates – New LED lights at equivalent lumen rate NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 44

Discussion

ATTACHMENT #3 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 03/27/2018 PROPOSED CHANGES TO: CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PROCEDURE MANUAL TITLE: Grant Application Procedures PROCEDURE # 317 DATE: November 2, 2007 REVISED: November 7, 2014 Introduction This procedure is intended to establish clear directions for accounting for and administering the funds and resources received by the City through Federal, State, and other Grants. It is the City’s policy to strictly prohibit any political activities related to Federal, State and other political subdivision assisted programs. The City’s employees will not engage in such activities nor spend City funds or grant funds in such activities. Definitions “Closeout”: The process of finalizing a grant project, including completion of the final financial reports, determination of cash balances, accomplishment of necessary accounting entries and placing all project files in a manageable holding system. “Department”: Departments are the major organizational sub-divisions. They have a broad overall purpose. The City of Dover is organized into departments as follow: Customer Services, Parks & Recreation, Library, Public Works, Police, Public Utilities, Mayor, Economic Development, Procurement & Inventory, City Clerk, City Manager, Information Technology, Finance, Human Resources, and Tax Assessor. “Grants”: Funds and resources procured by the City which are restricted as to usage by the government or institution providing the funds. Usually, there is an application process whereby the City provides evidence of its need for the funds, its ability to use the funds in a manner approved by the grantor, and detailing the expenditures expected to be incurred. The primary grant providers to the City are the Federal and State governments. “In Kind Match”: A grant where the required match is not a cash contribution, but is existing personnel time, equipment or material made available for the purpose of the grant. “Matching Funds”: Dollars that must be available in order to qualify for a grant. Often grantors will not support the entire cost of a project and require that the applicant provides a certain share of the project cost from other sources. “NOFA”: Notice of funding availability. Grant-making agencies issue a NOFA to solicit applications. FI 105 1

“OMB Circular A-87”: Establishes principles and standards for determining costs for Federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with State and local governments. “Pass-Through Entity”: a non-Federal entity that provides a subaward to a subrecipient to carry out part of a Federal program. “Subaward”: an award of financial assistance in the form of money, or property in lieu of money, made under an award by a recipient to an eligible subrecipient or by a subrecipient to a lower tier subrecipient. The term includes financial assistance when provided by any legal agreement, even if the agreement is called a contract. “Subrecipient”: a legal entity to which a subaward is made and which is accountable to the recipient for the use of the funds provided. Departmental Grant Application Decision Making Process 1. The Departments are responsible for seeking out new grant resources. The Department shall analyze the need and future costs of a grant before applying for a grant. A number of questions shall be considered by the department before determining whether a grant application is appropriate. A Department Grant Application Analysis Form to be completed by each department can be found in Appendix A. 2. A copy of the Department Grant Application Analysis Form should be maintained in the grant folders at the department level and copies distributed to the City Manager and Finance Director for budgeting and auditing purposes. 3. If the annual project/program cost in excess of the grant award exceeds $25,000 Council approval is required. A copy of the Department Grant Application Analysis Form should accompany the appropriate approval forms. Grant Application Process 1. The Application process is the most critical step. The requesting department prepares the grant application package and submits the approved, completed grant packages to the proper grantor institution. The reviewing body will make their decision solely upon the evidence of need as shown in the application. Therefore, a well-documented proposal is imperative. Departments should review the requirements of the application closely. 2. City Council must approve the application of all grants which require a ‘monetary’ match in funds of $25,000 or more from the City of Dover or if the grant requires City Council approval. Grants requiring ‘in-kind’ matches do not need Council approval. The Department shall be responsible for acquiring City Council approval before applying for grants with these requirements. Please note if the grant and match have been fully identified in the approved budget, Council approval shall be met. This procedure does not negate any requirements of the City Purchasing Policy. 3. The application cannot be submitted to a grantor for consideration without the written approval of the Department Head regardless of the amount. A copy of the application with the Department Head’s signature should be kept on file within the submitting department. FI 105 2

4. The requesting department will be responsible for ensuring that all approved applications are signed by the Mayor or appropriate official prior to submission. Grant Award/Post Award Process 1. The requesting department receives the grant award letter. Federal award notification is received by email. If the City is awarded the grant, a Committee Action Form (CAF) is to be prepared for the Legislative, Finance & Administrative Committee to approve the grant award. The CAF shall include any non-grant funded expenses listed in the ‘Department Grant Application Analysis Form’ for the current and future fiscal years. The application must include the CFDA# for federal programs and follow the most recently published Office of Justice Financial Guide. Several types of state funded grants are awarded to local law enforcement agencies state- wide based on annual allocations of funds approved by the State Legislature and quarterly applications for funds resulting from property and drug seizures. The Police Department must conform to the grantor requirements for spending these funds, as well as any procedures for pass through Federal Grants as provided above. The Police Chief approves the application for and disbursing of these particular funds. 2. A grant records file shall be maintained and updated by the requesting department for each application throughout the grant process, including the final accounting and closeout. The file shall consist of, at a minimum, the application, acceptance letter and a spreadsheet detailing cash receipts and disbursements. The Department must maintain records of expenditures including any appropriate supporting documentation in accordance with the Federal/State grant guidelines and City’s retention policy. The expenditures must be reviewed to determine if they are an eligible expense under the grant agreement. 3. Confidential records supporting expenditures for informant funds etc, used by the Police Department will be maintained in accordance with current policies and procedures for the department. Procedural notice 42 Criminal Investigations, section VII outlines those procedures to be followed by the Police Department. 4. The Department Head, or his/her designee, shall monitor the status of the grant application and the subsequent award. 5. The original signed grant contract shall be added to the appropriate grant file and identified with a contract number and the performance period. 6. Copies of all documents are to be provided to the Finance Department to monitor complianc e and completion of the annual audit. 7. Where applicable, Public Hearings and Advisory Board Meetings must be held in accordance with the grantor requirements throughout the term of the grant. FI 105 3

Subawards and Monitoring Procedures 1. The requesting department receiving the grant award is the award recipient. If the department is approved or required to make subawards for a Federal grant received, the department is also considered a pass-through entity. For these types of grants, the department must ensure the identifying Federal award information and applicable compliance requirements, including applicable special conditions, are clearly designated in the subrecipient award agreement. The subaward or agreement must, at a minimum, include the following information: A. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) title and number B. Award name and number C. Name of the Federal awarding agency D. Activities to be performed E. Period of performance F. Project policies G. Original award flow-through requirements that are applicable to the subrecipient H. Instructions and procedures for subaward monitoring compliance I. Other policies and procedures that may apply and need to be followed J. Dollar limitation of the agreement K. Cost principles to be used in determining allowable costs 2. In addition, the department must complete the actions required during the grant program to monitor the subrecipient’s use of Federal funds. The methods of monitoring may vary. Following are some of the factors that may be considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of monitoring: A. Programs with complex compliance requirements that may have a higher risk of non- compliance. B. The larger the percentage of program awards passed through, the greater the need for subrecipient monitoring. C. Larger dollar awards are of greater risk. D. Subrecipients may be evaluated as higher risk or lower risk to determine the need for closer monitoring. Generally, new subrecipients may require closer monitoring. For existing subrecipients, based on results of during-the-award monitoring and subrecipient audits, a subrecipient may warrant closer monitoring (e.g., the subrecipient has a history of non- compliance as either a recipient or subrecipient, new personnel, or new or substantially changed systems). 3. Some of the mechanisms that may be used to monitor subrecipient activities throughout the year include: A. Review monthly financial and performance reports submitted by the subrecipient. B. Perform subrecipient site visits to examine financial and programmatic records and observe operations. C. Review detailed financial and program data and information submitted by the subrecipient when no site visit is conducted. Documents to review might include timesheets, invoices, contracts, and ledgers that tie back to financial reports. D. Regular communication with subrecipients and appropriate inquiries concerning program activities. FI 105 4

4. The purpose of all monitoring activities is to provide reasonable assurance that the subrecipient has administered the pass-through funding in compliance with the laws, regulations, and the provisions of the award and that the required performance goals are being achieved. Accounting Procedures 1. The Department Head shall request account numbers for grant revenues and expected expenditures from the City Finance office. Where applicable a project number will be assigned to each grant to track receipts and expenses. 2. The Finance Department and Department Head are responsible for maintaining separate records for each grant project to avoid commingling of grant funds. 3. The Department Head is responsible for assuring all grant project funds are expended according to the terms of the grant. All grant project funds must be obligated by the termination date(s) specified in the grant. Any matching funds must be expended and reported timely. 4. The Department Head is responsible for submitting any required reimbursement requests to the grantor as authorized expenditures are incurred. At the end of each fiscal year, the Department Head shall submit to the Finance Department a list of all outstanding reimbursement requests and qualified expenditures incurred, but not submitted to the grantor for reimbursement. Accordingly, the Finance Department shall create a grant receivable entry, reconciling this to the grant activity recorded during the period. 5. Purchase, Invoice and Payment processing shall be in accordance with the City of Dover Purchasing Policy, incorporated into this procedure by this reference. Payroll processing shall be in accordance with City payroll procedures. 6. Retention of records shall be in accordance with the State of Delaware’s Local Government General Records Retention Schedule for Grants, which specifies grant financial files are to be retained for five three years after submission of the grant closeout letter and successful audit. 7. Requests for drawdown of funds must be in accordance with award requirements specified by the grantor. 8. Receipts are received and entered into the General Ledger by the Finance Department. 9. The Department Head is responsible for maintaining records of all inventory purchased and are to provide an updated copy to the Finance Department June 30 each year for audit purposes. All records for equipment, non-expendable personal property and real property shall be retained for a period of at least three years from the date of the disposition, replacement, or transfer. 10. Records must be maintained for each non-expendable item that costs $5,000 or more and has a useful life of one year or more. The Department Head shall send the invoices and appropriate backup data to the Finance Department for recording in the Capital Asset System. 11. The Department Head is responsible for timely submission of reports to the grantor as required under the terms of the grant. FI 105 5

12. The Department Head is responsible for submitting quarterly and final Financial Status Reports (FSR’s) for grants if required under the terms of the grant. A copy of any FSR must be submitted to the Finance Department before being sent to the grantor. Finance shall reconcile amounts reported on the FSR with the amounts recorded in the City's accounting system. Any discrepancy shall be resolved by the Department Head and communicated to the Finance Department. 13. The Department Head is responsible for performing and monitoring closeout activities. 14. Any unexpended funds shall be returned to the grantor and any interest earned on cash balances shall be disbursed in accordance with the grant requirements. 15. The Finance Department is responsible for preparing Form SF-SAC, “Data Collection Form for Reporting on Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations,” in accordance with Federal OMB Circular A-133. 16. A quarterly report will be presented to City Council by the Finance Department for all grants. Control of Grant Funds 1. Interest earned and expended is promptly recorded in the accounting records and reported on the FSR’s. FSR’s are due 45 days after the end of the calendar quarter. 2. Grant funds and interest earned is expended by the end of the allowable period. 3. Matching funds are expended and reported timely. 4. Final FSR’s are submitted timely. 5. The Department Head will ensure grant requirements are met and if necessary will request changes from the grantor 60 days before the end of the award period. 6. Draw down of Federal funds will be initiated after the Department submits the quarterly FSR’s. This ensures that the department has already paid for the cost of goods or services incurred on behalf of Federal grants. Any funds received in advance will be placed in an interest earning account. 7. Department Heads ensure matching funds are spent and that related expenditures are tracked for reporting purposes. 8. Department Heads will obtain permission from federal grantees to spend the interest earned a s part of the grant proceeds. They will request a Budget Adjustment Request to augment grant budgets with interest earned revenues that they have received. DISTRIBUTION Mayor CDBG Director Police Department City Manager Department Heads FI 105 6

Dover Police Department General Order 17 BUDGET AND PURCHASING PROCEDURES I. PURPOSE The purpose of this order is to outline the responsibilities associated with budgeting and purchasing, and the procedures to be followed in carrying out those responsibilities II. POLICY The Dover Police Department will manage all budget, grant and purchasing procedures in accordance with the procedures established by the City of Dover. If a conflict between the city procedures and established grant guidelines occurs, the grant guidelines will be followed. III. BUDGET PROCESS The Police Resources Manager is responsible for all actions associated with budget preparation and management. These duties include the following: A. Request inputs for the annual budget from the Chief of Police, Deputy Chief and Division/Unit Commanders for use in budget planning and preparation. B. Prepare a draft budget and follow-up documents using procedures established by the City of Dover. C. Review all expenditures throughout the fiscal year and make recommendations to the Chief of Police for any required budget revisions. IV. GRANT PROCESS The Police Resources Manager is also responsible for all actions associated with the preparation of grant applications, management, and reporting to include the following duties: A. Request inputs for grant applications from the staff for use in their preparation. B. Perform all grant management and oversee all purchasing actions. C. Prepare financial grant status reports as required. For granting agencies that require the submission of both financial and program status reports, the Police Resources Manager will be responsible for the financial reports and the Administrative Division Commander will complete the program reports. The separation of these duties is mandated by Federal grant guidelines for internal control purposes. D. Perform subgrant monitoring as required. There are police grants that may be awarded on a joint basis due to a disparate funding situation identified by the granting agency. The prime example of this includes recurring law enforcement grants the police department receives from the Federal Department of Justice. For these grants, the Dover Police Department shares its award with other agencies as identified in the grant funding authorization document which is published on the USDOJ website at the time of the grant solicitation. Since the Dover Police Department usually is awarded the larger share of funds on these grants, it MAR 2018 GO 17 - 1

Dover Police Department becomes the pass-through entity and makes subawards to the other agencies on the joint awarded grant. The following procedures will apply: 1. Grant subawards will be issued and contain any applicable information as identified in the City’s Grant Application Procedures (Procedure 317). However, all grant purchases will be made and paid for directly through the City of Dover’s financial systems, so the Dover Police Department will ensure all grant purchases comply with the City of Dover Purchasing Policy. 2. Subrecipient monitoring: the grants received in the past were awarded jointly to the Dover Police Department, Smyrna Police Department and Kent County for purchases of law enforcement equipment and/or training. The funding for the subrecipient shares did not exceed $25,000, so there is less risk involved with completing these types of purchases. As a result, monitoring procedures will include: the review of the program and financial documentation submitted for the grant purchases to ensure they comply with the City of Dover Purchasing Policy and verification that the purchases were made and the required equipment lists are provided to close the grant. 3. The monitoring instructions above will be outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding that is required to be submitted as part of the grant application and in the grant subaward document. V. PURCHASING PROCEDURES The Central Services Coordinator is primarily responsible for all department purchases. Additional personnel may be authorized to make purchases by the Chief of Police. The following procedures will be followed: A. All purchases will comply with the City of Dover Purchasing Policy. B. Commanding officers will be held accountable for those portions of the agency’s budget that relate to their functions. Requests for purchases will be based on the approved budget and made through the chain of command to the Police Resources Manager and Central Services Coordinator: 1. Daily Operating Supplies include office, computer and custodial supplies, uniform items, and other similar items that do not require any special bid actions. a. Ordering - Requests for these items will be provided to the Central Services Coordinator via personal memorandum from the staff or using the Dover Police Department Requisition form. Verbal or voicemail requests will not be honored because there is no audit trail 1) A copy of the form is included in Attachment A and is maintained in the forms directory on the I drive on the department server. 2) This form was created using a workflow application which will automatically route the form electronically through the chain of command via email for the appropriate approvals. As a result, please do not photocopy the form and fill it out manually. a. Pick-up - Once the items have been received, the Central Services Coordinator will notify the individual that the item is in and will coordinate a time for pick-up. MAR 2018 GO 17 - 2

Dover Police Department b. Occasionally, the requestor may need to pick-up ordered items directly from the local vendor. To maintain accountability of the items, approval must be obtained from the Central Services Coordinator prior to pick-up. In addition, the person making the pickup will ensure the receipt for the items is provided to the Central Services Coordinator as a written receipt/verification for all items is required by Finance to make the payment. 2. Special order items include non-stocked items such as specialized equipment; grant funded equipment, etc. a. Ordering – Requests for these items will be provided to the Central Services Coordinator via personal memorandum for items costing $5,000 and less or Dover PD Bid Summary form for items valued over $5,000. b. Bid Information and process – Requestors must perform research to provide bidding information. The minimum information needed to process the request includes: item description, quantity and recommended sources. Three sources are needed and identify vendor names and phone numbers. The Central Services Coordinator will contact the vendors to obtain their particular item specifications. Once the information is received, the Central Services Coordinator will coordinate with the City’s Purchasing Agent for formal bids, when required to order the item. c. Pick-up - Once the order is filled and items have been received, the Central Services Coordinator will notify the individual that the item is in and will coordinate a time for pickup. 3. Exceptions – the only exceptions recognized to the above guidelines apply to the ordering of computer equipment, computer software, building maintenance supplies, weapons and ammunition. The Department LAN Technician, Special Operations Response Team (SORT) Commander, and Building Craftsperson in coordination with the Central Services Coordinator or Police Resources Manager will order these types of items respectively, and in accordance with the City of Dover purchasing policy. C. All invoices and receipts for items received will be reviewed by the Central Services Coordinator and forwarded to the Police Resources Manager for further processing. D. The Police Resources Manager will prepare the necessary documentation required for payment through the City of Dover financial systems. Approval of purchases will be accomplished by the Police Resources Manager or other designee as authorized by the Chief of Police. VI. ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES A. The Police Resources Manager will maintain records of all invoices and payments throughout each fiscal year. A record of all transactions will be maintained for each line item account, including all grant accounts with the exception of salary and fringe benefit accounts. B. Accounts established for Petty Cash transactions will be managed in accordance with the City of Dover’s Petty Cash Procedures. C. All Funds and accounts are subject to the independent audit conducted annually as contracted by the City of Dover. MAR 2018 GO 17 - 3

Dover Police Department D. Accounting of all agency-owned property shall be the responsibility of the Central Services Coordinator in accordance with procedures under separate cover. The Central Services Coordinator shall also be responsible for the maintenance and operational readiness of all stored property. VII. DEFINITIONS “Pass-Through Entity”: a non-Federal entity that provides a subaward to a subrecipient to carry out part of a Federal program. “Subaward”: an award of financial assistance in the form of money, or property in lieu of money, made under an award by a recipient to an eligible subrecipient or by a subrecipient to a lower tier subrecipient. The term includes financial assistance when provided by any legal agreement, even if the agreement is called a contract. “Subrecipient”: a legal entity to which a subaward is made and which is accountable to the recipient for the use of the funds provided. VIII. SUPERSEDES This Procedural Notice supersedes all previous procedures and directives issued orally or in writing that are not in total conformity herewith. IX. EFFECTIVE DATE This Procedural Notice shall become effective upon execution and issuance ORDER EFFECTIVE AND ISSUED THIS ___ day of Mar 2018 Marvin C. Mailey Chief of Police MAR 2018 GO 17 - 4

Dover Police Department NOTE: The Requisition Form below is maintained on the I drive forms directory. Please fill out the form from there as it was created using an application that automatically routes the user’s request electronically for approvals via email. BID SUMMARY FORM -- SAMPLE – Police Resources Manager Approval Date Central Services Coordinator Approval Date PFC Smith 4/5/16 Requester Date Item Description: Undercover Joey Wire (4 each) Funding Source: Accounting Classification: EIDE Grant 710-1700-545.20-26 Method of Purchase (Circle One): Sole Continuity of Declared Other – Explain Bid Vendor Service Emergency ___________________ COMPARISON OF BIDS Vendor Contact Person Phone # Pricing Info Vendor A Jim Rogers 555-1234 $7500 /set plus shipping Vendor B Herman Mueller 555-2225 Does not carry model requested Vendor C Heidi Lewis 555-8908 $5500/set plus shipping Recommended Vendor: Vendor A Reason for Award: Lowest Bid MAY 2017 17 – Attachment B