Council Packet Revised

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA February 14, 2005 - 7:30 P.M. - Council Chambers - City Hall - City of Dover OPEN FORUM - 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO OFFICIAL MEETING (7:15 P.M.) INVOCATION BY CHAPLAIN WALLACE DIXON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-controversial shall be marked with an asterisk (*) and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. * 1. Adoption of Minutes - Council Retreat on January 21, 2005 - Regular Council Meeting of January 24, 2005 2. Public Hearing - Disposal of Land - Hanson House - 134 E. Water Street * 3. Utility Committee Report - January 24, 2005 A. Revised Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Street Widths (See Item #9) B. Water Quality Evaluation Program & Consulting Services/CIP Amendment * 4. Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - January 24, 2005 A. Revised Purchasing Policy B. Amendments - Pay for Performance Policy * 5. Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report - January 25, 2005 A. Rojan Meadows - Open Space Plan * 6. Special Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - February 7, 2005 A. Reallocation of Community Development Block Grant Funds 7. Bids A. Remittance Processing System B. Information Technology Emergency Preparedness Plan C. Request to Purchase Medium Duty Truck With 16' Dump Body

COUNCIL RETREAT Members of Council held a Retreat on January 21, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. at The Duncan Center, 500 West Loockerman Street, with Council President Williams presiding. Members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Mr. Slavin was absent. Mayor Speed, Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. McDowell were also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Salters moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Ruane and unanimously carried. INTRODUCTION AND WARM UP - WHY ARE WE HERE? Mr. Deprima, City Manager, introduced Mr. David Hugg, City Manager for the Town of Smyrna, and advised members that he would be the facilitator for the Retreat. WHERE HAVE WE BEEN? Mr. DePrima stated that the following projects or ideas were implemented as a result of past Retreats: ! Establishing a Human Resources Department ! Burying Electric Lines ! Youth Government Day ! No Smoking Ordinance ! The Concept for Main Street Dover ! Initiation of E-Government ! Fiscal Impact Models for Annexations ! Street Inventory Updates ! Privatization Analysis - Elimination of City Tree Trimming Crew ! Uniform Safety Procedures WHERE ARE WE GOING? Mr. DePrima reviewed the results of the 2004 Citizen Survey and noted that the core City services which received low scores were as follows: ! Recreation Programming ! The Range and Variety of Recreation Programming ! Drinking Water ! Sewer Services ! Animal Control ! Services for Youth ! Snow Removal He noted that the general problems areas were as follows: ! Property Crimes ! Violent Crimes ! Safety Downtown After Dark ! Safety in Parks After Dark

CITY COUNCIL RETREAT ON JANUARY 21, 2005 PAGE 2 The Quality of Life Issues were as follows: ! Sense of Community ! Indoor Recreation Space ! Openness and Acceptance ! Cultural Opportunities ! Recreational Opportunities ! Job Opportunities ! Affordable Housing Mr. DePrima stated that he wanted to review the survey results as a reminder for members to consider during their discussions. He also noted that the following initiatives were either current or pending: ! Brown Water Solution ! Electric Generation Capacity Study ! Senator Carper - Homeownership Initiative Participation ! Reducing Cost of Medical and Retirement Benefits (Unfunded Liability) (2) ! American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance " Renovation/redesign of Council Chambers (1) Mr. DePrima reminded members that the following projects or ideas were currently in progress as a result of past Retreats: ! Water Master Plan - System Expansion (Tidewater Negotiations) ! Update Comprehensive Plan - Annexation Chapter ! Annexation - Marketing " Effort to provide information on the benefits of annexation ! Broadband Exploration ! Charter Review ! Facilities Space Plan " Both 5-year and long-term plan ! Library Study and Initiative " Actively looking for sites for a 50,000 square foot building ! Indoor Recreation Center Initiative " Financing plan " Seeking partners " Construction of completed design ! GIS Initiative " Create a uniform GIS mapping program, including Electric Department, Public Works, Planning, and Police " Hire GIS coordinator " Train departments in use of GIS ! Long Range I/T Plan Implemented

CITY COUNCIL RETREAT ON JANUARY 21, 2005 PAGE 3 Mr. DePrima reviewed the FY06 Strategic Objectives and Major CIP Projects for City Departments. He advised members that if there were department projects listed that they felt should be made a priority, or should be removed from the project list, they would have an opportunity to prioritize or delete the projects, based on a consensus of members. Members were requested to indicate whether they wanted to proceed !, slow down !, or stop ! the projects by placing the appropriate colored sticker adjacent to each project. The following indicates the results of this action: Current/Pending Initiatives 1. Brown Water Solution ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2. Electric Generation Capacity Study ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3. Senator Carper - Homeownership Initiative Participation ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4. Reducing Cost of Medical & Retirement Benefits ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5. ADA Compliance ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Past Retreat Items in Progress 1. Water Master Plan - System Expansion (Tidewater Negotiations) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2. Amended Comprehensive Plan - Annexation Chapter ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3. Annexation - Marketing ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4. Broadband Exploration ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5. Charter Review ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6. Facilities Space Plan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7. Library Study & Initiative ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 8. Indoor Recreation Center Initiative ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9. GIS Initiative ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 10. Long Range I/T Plan Implemented ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WHERE DO WE START? Mr. Hugg advised members that the purpose of the Retreat was for members to express their ideas and concerns in order to establish priorities for moving forward. Although Mr. Slavin was absent from the Retreat, he provided the following items for discussion and possible prioritization over the next year: ! Charter Reform (6) The short-term goal of completing Council’s revision of the charter, to include the myriad changes made over the years, as well as to eliminate redundancies and conflicts with other statutes. Once complete, Mr. Slavin believes Council should look toward a reform of the Charter, to include a potential reorganization of City government. He also recommended establishing a process and methodology which includes an independent Blue Ribbon Commission that would make recommendations to Council on the reform of City government and the Charter.

CITY COUNCIL RETREAT ON JANUARY 21, 2005 PAGE 4 ! Citizen Participation in City Government (2) While Dover has a very proud history of citizen participation through the use of various boards, committees, and commissions, Mr. Slavin encourages the use of special focus task forces and commissions to broaden the opportunities for citizens to participate. It is his feeling that this would be an effective way to obtain community input for such things as the proposed recreation center and library, the development of the Eden Hill tract, and the range of services needed by the community’s senior citizens. ! Use of Referendum (2) Mr. Slavin feels strongly that Council must clarify and perhaps develop a new policy on the use of referendum to support City initiatives, including the use of non-binding referendum for new Public Works projects, such as the recreation center and the library, as well as for public safety and health issues, such as brown water. He also feels that Council should explore the feasibility of offering non-binding referendum questions simultaneously with the November elections to ensure a greater voter turn-out. ! Ninety-eight Percent Rule (2) Mr. Slavin believes that the City should adopt a 98% rule, similar to State government, which requires that the City cannot budget more than 98% of its projected revenue in a given year. He noted that this has proven to be an effective budgeting tool at the State level. ! Brown Water (1) Mr. Slavin proposed to continue to fund the Brown Water Contingency Fund which currently has a balance of approximately $200,000 for the remediation of brown water problems. Mr. Slavin felt that higher balances should be established in the fund to help offset any potential infrastructure issues. ! Re-design of Electric Bill (1) } These items were inadvertently omitted ! Notification System (1) } from Councilman Slavin’s items submitted } for discussion and possible prioritization Mayor Speed suggested the following topics for discussion: Homeownership Initiative/Downtown (6) 1) Provide monetary incentives 2) Zoning Changes/new Downtown Zone - adopt a mixed use downtown zone (specified in comp plan) - in addition to adding homeowners 3) Nuisance Property Enforcement (City-wide) ! Transfer Tax Elimination for First Time Home Buyers " The State transfer tax is 3% " Seven (7) or eight (8) years ago legislation was passed to allow local governments to collect half

CITY COUNCIL RETREAT ON JANUARY 21, 2005 PAGE 5 " Adopted exemption for first time home buyer and extended abatement to the seller " City of Dover is 20 percentage points behind the national average in home ownership with ten percent (10%) ownership in the target area and seventy percent (70%) Citywide " The City of Dover only extends exemption to buyer (most extend to seller) " Wilmington extends exemption to first time Wilmington home buyer regardless of how many homes they already own " Buyer has to pay up-front costs " According to the City Assessor, if the seller exemption was in place, the City would have realized $122,000 in revenue between July 2003 and June 2004 ! Real Estate Tax Abatement in Target Area " Minimum occupancy restrictions, etc. " Reduces up-front costs / redevelopment issue " Adjunct to Carper Initiative (Ami Hauer - Delaware Housing Authority - approves of idea) " People have difficulty finding houses they can afford - not $200,000 houses " Developers should set aside a portion of development for “affordable” housing " Show buyers how to manage a mortgage/initial costs, etc ! Elimination of Conversion from Single to Multi-family - RG-1 is largest area " Can change downtown in next five years ! Companion Transfer Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance (County Has Passed) (2) Mr. Salters suggested the following topics for discussion: ! Thorough Review of Planning Staffing (5) ! City Managers Office - Assistant City Manager (2) " Need assistant to act when City Manager is out of town ! Administrative Services Staffing (1) ! Electric - Replace Two Engineers with Two (2) Junior Engineers ! Revenue Stream/Taxes - May Be Time/Necessary to Tax (1) ! Obsolescence of City Buildings (1) ! City-wide Code Enforcement (5) ! Learning More About the Target Population at the House of Pride/Better Understanding of Their Long-term Goals (3) Mr. Hogan suggested the following topics for discussion: ! Review Inspections Policy (New Inspections) ! Park Safety/Downtown Safety After-hours (Blue Light Program) (5) " Would provide safety and would be well received by the community ! Broadband Implementation - Not Necessarily Good Idea

CITY COUNCIL RETREAT ON JANUARY 21, 2005 PAGE 6 ! Rules and Guidelines for Certificate of Occupancy Requirements (What Is Needed in New Home Construction Prior to Occupancy) ! Review Reporting Structure - Do Not Need Four (4) Department Heads Reporting to Council (1) ! Recreation Center (duplicate) ! Expansion of the City by Expanding Services Outside of City Limits (Water, Sewer, Police - Contract Enforcement for Nearby Towns) ! Ada Requirements/council Chambers ! Animal Control/greater Cooperation/Relationship Between City and SPCA Mr. Carey suggested the following topics for discussion: ! Electric Generation - Future Capacity/Replacement & Building ¯ Will be addressed in Electric Generation Capacity Study ! Volume of Water Available - Water Capacity (Pressure & Volume Available - Building/growth/industry ¯ Will be addressed in Water Master Plan ! Revisit Restaurant Health Inspections (Take Back from State Responsibility or Discuss Improvements) (2) ! Evaluate Future Wastewater Needs and Requirements/revisit Agreements (3) " Without knowing future needs it will be difficult to plan Mr. Ritter suggested the following topics for discussion: ! Mobile GPS Tracking - Capability to Track Electric and Police Vehicles (1) ! Turning Wastewater Pump Stations Over to Kent County (In County’s Main Transmission Lines (Related to Pressure) (4) " Cost of Puncheon Run is $1.4M - turn over to County and save $1.4M " Operating and maintenance costs ! Priority I/I (Inflow and Infiltration) Wastewater (5) ! Why Do City Residents Pay County Taxes for No Services - Dual Taxation (1) ! Quality of Life Task Force/Crime (5) ! Public Notification - Snow Removal (1) Mr. Ruane suggested the following topics for discussion: ! Work Plan for the Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan (1) " Economic Development " Transportation ! Should Dover Be Recognized as a Regional Library (7) " If so, show commitment by funding (Ruane) (6 of 10) " Find out where County is with designation (Williams) " Express our interest in being the Regional Library (DePrima) " Would the City relinquish rights? How would personnel be shared? (Ritter) ! Affordable Housing (5) ! Vacant Building Ordinance (1)

CITY COUNCIL RETREAT ON JANUARY 21, 2005 PAGE 7 ! Raising Bond Debt Limit Without Referendum (5) " Costs of projects have increased ! Oversight of Tax Assessor’s Office (2) ! Master Planning Requirements for Non-City Major Institutions (1) ! Sanitation as an Enterprise Fund - Move Toward Self-Supporting Utility (2) " Understanding the true cost of trash removal ! Expansion of Paperless Packet Requirements of Other Departments - Specifically Planning Commission (2) ! Do We Support of Bus Terminal?? (1) ! Relationship of Parking Authority, Main Street, and Downtown Dover Development Corporation (2) " Coordinate Supporting Objectives, Staff Review - Study Merger ! Additional Staff to Maintain Red Light Program? ! XX (opposed to) Garrison Farm ! Memorandum of Understanding Re: Livable Delaware (1) ! Support of the Arts Mrs. Williams suggested the following topics for discussion: ! Garrison Tract Commission Consisting of Secondary and Higher Learning Members (4) " Have colleges make commitments to implement programs to train staff for future businesses " Mr. DePrima feels smaller lot sizes would be more attractive - would require an ordinance amendment " Have engineer start platting lots and roads " Maintain large core lot " Have spent $100,000 of the $500,000 received for utility improvements ! Electric Surcharge for Non-city Residents (3) ! Identify Partners/Stakeholders in Combined Projects Such as the Regional Library and Recreation Center and Get Commitments (1) ! Code Communications Mr. Sadusky suggested the following topics for discussion: ! Civic Center (5) ! Ordinance Requiring Security Cameras for New Construction (1) " Robberies in parking lots ! Support curbside recycling (1) " There will be legislation - does council want to fight or comply? ! Voluntary Pilot Curbside Recycling Program with State support " Implement a pilot voluntary program " City cannot support the expense of curbside recycling alone " Not Federally driven - supported by Delaware Solid Waste Authority and groups interested in the environment and conserving landfill space ! Homeowner education

CITY COUNCIL RETREAT ON JANUARY 21, 2005 PAGE 8 Mr. Pitts suggested the following topics for discussion: ! Council Benefits/Compensation (2) Members were requested to vote for the projects they were most interested in seeing move forward. (Note: actual votes are indicated in parenthesis next to projects.) Mr. DePrima noted that the prioritized projects would be included in either Council’s strategic budget, a new mission statement for the next two years, or will be added to the departments strategic objectives. He stated that many items could be easily implemented by staff and others are more difficult or time consuming. He stated that he would work with the City Clerk to develop a means for Council to determine if there is a majority that supports a project and, if so, for each project to be prioritized by Council. Mr. Salters moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Ruane and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 2:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Beverly C. Williams Council President BCW/JCG/tm S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Council-Minutes\2005\01-21-2005 Retreat.wpd

Council Agenda February 14, 2005 Page 2 8. Proposed Resolution - Creation of Garrison Tract Commission 9. Final Reading - Proposed Ordinance The First Reading of the following proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 24, 2005. Copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers. Appendix A - Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI - Subdivision-General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A - Streets, Subsection 13 10. Council Members Comments /jg S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Council-Agendas\2005\02-14-2005.wpd THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on January 24, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Mr. Pitts was absent. Council staff members present were Police Chief Horvath, Mr. Cooper, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Galvin, Fire Chief Bashista, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. Green, and Mayor Speed. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Williams declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action. Mr. Eric O'Brien, 30 N. New Street, stated that he has received no response to the official complaint he filed with the Human Relations Commission on April 29, 2004, which was resubmitted on October 9, 2004. He reiterated the problems of loitering, loud noise, and other quality of life issues he is experiencing in his neighborhood and submitted documentation of the various offenses (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk). The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and unanimously carried. Mr. Carey moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2005 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 10, 2005 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and bore the written approval of Mayor Speed. FIRST STATE HERITAGE PARK AT DOVER - PRESENTATION Ms. Elaine Brenchley, Project Director for The First State Heritage Park at Dover, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the First State Heritage Park. She advised members that this is a partnership of state agencies seeking to work in collaboration with city and county government, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector to create Delaware’s first urban “park without boundaries” in the city that has been the seat of state government since 1777. The goal of the Park initiative is to raise the visibility of Delaware’s capital as an attraction for heritage tourists by creating and marketing a more comprehensive and cohesive picture of the historic significance and cultural asserts of Dover and the State of Delaware. Members were provided detailed information on the development of the park.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING/FIRST READING - PROPOSED LAND SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of proposed zoning text amendments to Appendix A - Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI - Subdivision- General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A - Streets, Subsection 13. Final action by Council will take place during the Second Reading of the ordinance on February 14, 2005. Council President Williams reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office. In accordance with Section 1-6 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: A PPENDIX A - L AND S UBDIVISION R EGULATIONS , A RTICLE VI - S UBDIVISION -G ENERAL R EQUIREMENTS AND D ESIGN S TANDARDS , S ECTION A - S TREETS , S UBSECTION 13 (Referred by the Utility Committee) Mr. Galvin, Director of Planning and Inspections, advised members that the proposed ordinance was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, and the Utility Committee. Responding to Mr. Ritter, Mr. Galvin stated that the City does not have a Code requirement related to center islands at the entrances to subdivisions. He noted that DelDOT typically addresses those issues as a part of their Development Advisory Committee (DAC) comments. Mr. Ritter expressed concern with the Fire Department’s ability to access subdivisions with the reduced street widths. He stated that he would be more comfortable with a minimum street width of 26 feet, especially for cul-de-sacs. Fire Chief Bashista advised members that he was involved in the review of the proposed amendments. He stated that the street width proposed in the ordinance would be adequate to perform emergency services as long as vehicles are not illegally parked on the streets. Mr. Hogan stated that developers will be required to provide the necessary off-street parking if they choose to build narrower streets with parking on one or two sides of the street. He noted that he lives on a thirty-eight (38) foot street and he feels that it is too wide since people tend to speed. Mr. DePrima stated that other issues to be considered are that narrow streets promote slower travel speed, the reduced cost of paving and maintenance of narrow streets, less stormwater management, and environmental impact. He also advised members of the benefits of alleys, such as additional access for police patrol and enforcement and emergency access, neater neighborhoods on trash collection day, and rear-yard parking and utilities. Council President Williams declared the public hearing open. With no one present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Council President Williams reminded members that final action by Council will take place during the Second Reading of the ordinance on February 14, 2005. UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 10, 2005 The Utility Committee met on January 10, 2005, with Chairman Carey presiding.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 3 Presentation - Electric Rate Study In 2003, the City of Dover retained Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company to prepare a Comprehensive Electric Revenue Requirement Cost of Service and Rate Design Study. In September 2003, the Electric Rate Study Implementation Committee was established to further analyze and validate the findings of the Rate Study. The committee's ultimate goal was to suggest ways of implementing the Study's recommendations in such a way as to ensure its objectives. The final recommendations of the committee were presented to the Utility Committee on February 24, 2004, at which time the City Manager was instructed to meet with the City’s customers to explain the rate study recommendations and discuss the impact of implementing the recommendations. During the committee meeting, Mrs. Tieman, Administrative Services Director, provided a PowerPoint Presentation and reviewed the key points of the Study and the recommendations of the Electric Rate Study Implementation Committee. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Tieman stated that the gap between revenue and the cost of services could be closed if the entire study were implemented; however, after discussions with the community and large business groups, the committee did not feel it was prudent to recommend implementation of the entire study at this time. Mr. DePrima, City Manager, noted that the Chamber of Commerce was aware that the majority of its membership would realize a savings on their electric bills; however, they chose not to support the recommendation to decrease rates for small and medium commercial members due to their concern with the impact on the large primary customers. It was their feeling that it would ultimately have a greater impact on their small and medium commercial members. Responding to Mr. Snaman, Mr. DePrima noted that although the City’s residential rate is higher than Conectiv’s rate, at the time of the study, the rates for Conectiv and Delmarva Power were frozen. He advised members that the moratorium will probably be lifted this year and the City’s rates will be more competitive. The committee recommended approval of the following: Option #3, changing the power factor to 95% from 90%, as recommended in the Study. Option #6, moving the church, agricultural commercial, municipal, agricultural residential, primary time-of-use and primary 2 rate customers into their appropriate rate classes, phasing in one rate class at a time for a smooth transition. Implementation Option #7, over the next three (3) to five (5) years, transition Playtex Products, Inc. to a less complicated rate structure that fits within the City of Dover's rate model, as recommended by the Burns and McDonnell Rate Study. Option #2, increase customer charges, with the exception of the small commercial and medium commercial rate increases, increasing the large commercial customer charge from $5 to $10, the residential customer charge from $4 to $5, and the primary customer charge from $0 to $10.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 4 That staff be requested to provide a revised Cost of Services Analysis showing the percent variance based on the rates recommended by the committee, once they are adopted by Council, and make a recommendation to close the gap between revenue and cost of service. It was noted that a memo dated January 24, 2005 presented by Mrs. Tieman explains that the recommendations, if approved, close the gap between revenue and cost of service; therefore, no further recommendation would be submitted by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent). By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 10, 2005 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on January 10, 2005, with Chairman Salters presiding. Revised Purchasing Policy As a result of a comprehensive review by the Finance Director, Mrs. Mitchell, members were provided proposed revisions to the City of Dover Purchasing Policy. In their review, the Finance Director agreed with several additional amendments suggested by members. Due to time constraints, members had to defer further review of the Purchasing Policy until their meeting on January 24, 2005. Mr. Salters requested members to provide written suggestions to Mrs. Mitchell prior to the meeting. The committee recessed until January 24, 2005. Disposal of Hanson House - 134 E. Water Street During the committee meeting held earlier this evening, members considered Disposal of the Hanson House, 134 E. Water Street (Tax ID# ED2-05-077.09-050-380), which is located on a 46.75' x 150' parcel west of and adjacent to the Delaware State Education Association building at 136 East Water Street. On the property is a 950 square foot, two story frame structure with a mansard roof. The building is considered historic and dates to the mid-1700s. The City purchased the property in 1984 for the purpose of housing the Delaware League of Local Governments. The League occupied the site until 1996 when the building was determined to be no longer habitable. In 1999, the City, in partnership with Preservation Delaware, applied for and received a Transportation Enhancement Grant for $144,000. The total project cost was estimated at $180,000 and the $36,000 difference between the grant and the total project cost was to be contributed by the City and Preservation Delaware. The plan was to restore the building and turn it over to Preservation Delaware for use. After preliminary design work, it became evident that additional funds were needed for construction and required archeological work. The Department of Transportation (DelDOT) increased the total grant award to $323,000 to cover design work,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 5 archeological surveys, and restoration and stabilization of the building; however, it was not intended to cover costs for making it habitable and Preservation Delaware was to be responsible for those additional funds. In 2004, two efforts were made to bid the project. In both instances, the bids were over $395,000 for construction only to cover exterior restoration and stabilization. Mr. DePrima stated that it is now clear that the building is far too deteriorated to be restored and demolition is warranted. However, the building's historic and architectural value can be somewhat preserved by selling the property to a buyer who would be willing to construct a modern replica of the building for office use with an appropriate addition and parking lot. The size of the lot would preclude a much larger building being built. In addition, this path would be most likely to be approved by the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission and have the least opposition from residents who value historic preservation. One potential buyer has come forth supporting this concept. In accordance with the City of Dover Procedure for Sale and Disposition of Real Property, the property has been evaluated and no City departments have a need for it. The current zoning is I/O (Institutional Office) and changing the zoning would not enhance the value of the lot. The procedure encourages the sale of surplus land through auctions or sealed bids. In this case, advertising for sealed bids is recommended. It was noted that, due to time constraints, staff requested that this matter be considered during the Council Meeting later this evening for final approval and recommended that City Council: 1) declare the property surplus and agree that it would be in the best interest of the City to sell it; 2) have the City Manager make a determination of minimum value; 3) authorize the City Manager to publicize pertinent information on the property and its availability for purchase to the general public by placing ads once a week for two weeks in local newspapers and to accept sealed bids for the property on behalf of the City Council; 4) have as a condition of the sale that an accurate replica of the existing exterior of the building be placed on the property after the sale, and that the seller is responsible for all Planning Commission and Historic District Commission approvals as well as property demolition costs; 5) hold a public hearing February 14, 2005; 6) award the bid after the public hearing pending results and an affirmative vote by Council to sell the property. Mr. Carey suggested that, if the property is sold, a right-of-way should be retained for access to the City-owned utilities on the property and an easement for the utilities to remain in place. The committee recommended approval of staff's recommendation. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent). By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 6 SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 12, 2005 The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met on January 12, 2005, with Chairman Ritter presiding. Tiers of Megan’s Law - Explanation by Community Policing Officer (Requested during Committee Meeting of October 27, 2004 - Review of Map/Chart of Incidents of Crime) During their Regular Meeting of October 27, 2004, members requested Police Chief Horvath to provide information on the Tiers of Megan’s Law. During the committee meeting, Community Policing Officer Benjamin Marvel explained to members the three (3) Risk Assessment Tier’s for sex offenders based on their charges and the disposition of their case. According to Department Policy, each Tier Level requires that an Officer physically goes to the offender’s residence, school, or place of employment to verify that they live, work, or attend school at that location. In some instances, Tier Level II and III offenders are placed on the Police Department website. Officer Marvel advised members that the Dover Police Department maintains records for 137 sex offenders within the City. He noted that 10 are Tier I, 101 are Tier II, and 26 are Tier III sex offenders. Mr. Ritter asked if it would be possible to place a list of sex offenders located within the City on the City’s website. Officer Marvel suggested that a link to the Delaware Sex Offender registry would probably be the quickest and easiest way to have that accomplished. He noted that the database can be sorted by the location of the offender. Mr. Ritter requested the City Manager and the Police Chief to investigate the possibility of posting sex offender information on the City’s and Police Department websites. Fire Prevention Presentation - Sprinkling of Assembly Occupancies (Dave Truax - Fire Marshal) The City’s Fire Marshal, Mr. David Truax, provided a PowerPoint Presentation of recommended Code amendments related to fire suppression. Members also viewed a video of a Rhode Island night club fire which killed more than 100 of the occupants. According to current city code, a sprinkler system is required if the structure is at least 10,000 square feet or has an occupancy limit of 300. Based on the recently adopted edition of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13 - Standards Related to the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, Mr. Truax recommended the following amendments: • All newly constructed indoor places with an occupancy limit of 150 or more; • Any existing structure in which interior renovations of 50 percent or more have been done and the building has an occupancy limit of 150 or more; • Any additions or increase in the size of an existing structure that would create an occupancy limit of 150 or more; • Educational buildings that are at least 5,000 square feet. Existing buildings would be grandfathered unless they are renovated or increase their capacity. The occupancy limit would decrease to 100 in establishments where alcohol is served and consumed since alcohol starts to impair judgment and the ability to make rational decisions.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 7 Mr. Ritter requested staff to bring the recommendations back in ordinance form for the committee’s consideration. Update by DelDOT Traffic Study - SR1/Route 8 and East Dover Housing Development Projects (Chairman Ritter requested Mr. Gary Laing to provide update during Committee Meeting of November 10, 2004) During their Regular Meeting of November 10, 2004, members were advised that the traffic studies would take more time to complete. Mr. Gary Laing, DelDOT Municipal Liaison, was requested to provide an update in one month. Mr. Laing stated that the SR1/Route 8 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) had been mailed to Mr. Galvin, Planning and Inspections Director, on November 22, 2004 and the TIS for Clearview Meadows was mailed on December 22, 2004. Mr. Galvin advised members that the Studies made recommendations for the entrances of all of the properties, as well as improvements shared by all of the developments, such as turn lanes, intersection improvements, and right-of-way acquisition costs. He noted that the City, DelDOT, and some of the developers met to discuss the recommendations. Status of Traffic Signal - Greenway Lane and Kenton Road (Gary Laing, DelDOT) Mr. Laing advised members that the study which was completed over one (1) year ago determined that a traffic light could not be installed at the intersection of Greenway Lane and Kenton Road due to its close proximity to Route 8. He stated that he has requested the Traffic Studies Division to revisit the study in order to develop creative alternatives to a traffic signal. Mr. Laing advised members that the West Dover Connector scheduled for February has been postponed until March 23, 2005, from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the Modern Maturity Center. He also noted that they plan to schedule two (2) or three (3) working group meetings in the first half of 2005, with a workshop being scheduled for July 2005. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Laing stated that DelDOT would be happy to meet with civic associations and requested that they be made aware when there are interested associations. By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent). MONTHLY REPORTS - DECEMBER 2004 By motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Sadusky, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: A. Budget Report B. Chief of Police Report C. City Assessor Report D. City Clerk/Alderman Report (Fines) E. City Manager’s Report F. Mayor's Report G. Planning and Inspections Report H. Robbins Hose Company No. 1 Report

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 8 CONFIRMATION OF POLICE PENSION ELECTION - RET. LT. TIMOTHY MULLANEY - THREE YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE JANUARY 31, 2008 The term of office on the Police Pension Board of Ret. Lieutenant Timothy Mullaney expires on January 31, 2005. Pursuant to Section 18-47(2)(b) of the Pension Plan, notice of an election was given to all plan members. Only one nomination was received, therefore, no election was held. Chief Horvath nominated Ret. Lt. Timothy Mullaney to serve a three (3) year term, to expire on January 31, 2008. Mr. Ruane moved for approval of the nomination of Ret. Lt. Timothy Mullaney to serve on the Police Pension Board, with a three (3) year term to expire on January 31, 2008. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE The First Reading of the following proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 10, 2005. CHAPTER 2 - ADMINISTRATION , ARTICLE III.I - MAYOR, SECTION 2-91 - DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MAYOR Mr. Carey moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. Mr. Carey moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent): BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR IN COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 2, Administration, of the Dover Code be amended by deleting Section 2-91, Duties and Responsibilities of the Mayor, in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following: Sec. 2-91. Duties and Responsibilities of the Mayor. The mayor shall have all of those duties and responsibilities set forth in sections 14 and 53 of the Charter, and as otherwise assigned in the Charter and this Code. In addition thereto, the mayor shall be available on a full-time basis to promote the economic and social interests of the city and the general welfare of its citizens by: 1. Interacting with private citizens, city employees, business people, and other major employers; 2. Interacting with civic and neighborhood associations; 3. Interacting with officials and representatives of other governments and lobbying said officials, as necessary, to promote the welfare of the city and its citizens; 4. Maintaining memberships and/or contacts with various organizations and committees whose purposes, services, or results significantly affect or could significantly affect the government of or the citizens of the city;

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 9 5. Representing the government of the city at various community functions; 6. Consulting with the Council on policy issues and, from time to time, offering policy initiatives; 7. Consulting with the City Manager on budgeting, policy and operational issues; 8. Representing the city, in consultation with the Council and City Manager, regarding major projects within or near the corporate boundaries of the city; 9. Making appointments to various commissions and committees as delineated in the City Charter and elsewhere in the City Code; 10. Taking such other decisions and actions, within the mayor’s Charter and Code assigned authority, as necessary to promote the safety, health, and welfare of the citizens of Dover. Note: In reference to interacting with city employees, this provision does not grant the authority or responsibility to the Mayor to intercede in personnel matters which are the responsibility of Council or Council appointed staff members, unless otherwise granted by City Charter or Code. Furthermore, such interaction shall also be governed by the provisions of Section 36 of Article III of the City Charter. ADOPTED: JANUARY 24, 2005 COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS Mr. Ruane commended the Public Works Department and the City Manager for their quick snow removal during the last snowstorm. Mr. Carey moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 8:15 P.M. JANICE C. GREEN CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of January 24, 2005, are hereby approved. STEPHEN R. SPEED MAYOR /JG/tm S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Council-Minutes\2005\01-24-2005-min.wpd

Memorandum Office of the City Manager PO Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7005 FAX: (302) 736-7002 E-mail tdeprima@dover.de.us To: Mayor and Council From: Anthony J. DePrima, AICP City Manager Date: February 10, 2005 Subject: Hanson House Proposals will be accepted through Monday, February 14, at 10:00 AM for the demolition/reconstsruction of the Hanson House property. As approved by City Council during its January 24 meeting, the bid will be awarded after the public hearing.. This item has also been placed on the Special Council Meeting, Executive Session agenda. /clc c:Tony/City Manager/MAC – Hanson House

UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee Meeting was held on January 24, 2005, at 5:45 p.m. with Chairman Carey presiding. Members present were Mr. Ruane, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Cregar, and Mr. Snaman. Members of Council present were Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Council President Williams (arrived at 5:58) . Mayor Speed was also present (arrived at 5:58) . AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sadusky moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried. Revised Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Street Widths During their Regular Meeting of December 13, 2004, members considered a proposed ordinance amendment to Appendix A - Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI - Subdivision-General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A-Streets, Subsection 13. Mr. Galvin advised members that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments. After considerable discussion, the committee deferred action with the understanding that the revised ordinance would be provided to members at their next meeting for review in sufficient form after having been reviewed by all appropriate parties so that a final recommendation can be formulated and forwarded to Council later that evening. Mr. Galvin stated that the proposed ordinance submitted to the committee on January 10, 2005, addressed the four primary concerns discussed during the December 13, 2004 meeting as follows: 1) changing the street designation from minor to local; 2) acknowledging and planning for a Local Commercial street; 3) adjusting turning radii requirements to meet the demands of emergency vehicles; and 4) provide an incentive for the creation of alleys in residential subdivisions. Mr. Galvin reviewed the proposed amendments and advised members that a new section 13.9 is being proposed to address the demand for clear space for emergency responses to townhouse communities, which are relatively dense. He noted that a 50-foot turning radius, as previously discussed, would be excessive for residential streets and would allow for greater traffic speed. Mr. Galvin suggested maintaining a 25-foot turning radius with a review by the City Engineer, paying close attention to the center medians and layout of the subdivision entrances. Mr. Ritter expressed concern with staff not investigating the appropriate radius to accommodate the largest fire truck. He also suggested changing the proposed 24 foot roads (local for all residential areas, cul-de-sac and dead ends, and marginal access) to 26 feet. Responding, it was Mr. Ruane’s feeling that Chief Bashista would not have approved of the 25-foot radius and 24-foot street recommendations if they would present a problem for the Fire Department. Mr. DePrima advised members that he spoke with Fire Chief Bashista and he indicated that he was satisfied with the proposed amendments. He also noted that the proposed amendments related to alleys provide incentive for one and two family developments while maintaining strict requirements for multiplexes and townhouses.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 2 Mr. Snaman moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendments (Attachment #1), seconded by Mr. Sadusky and unanimously carried. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Since this is an amendment to the Land Subdivision Regulations, a public hearing is required, which has been scheduled for January 24, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. Final action by Council will take place during the Section Reading of the ordinance on February 14, 2005.) Water Quality Evaluation Program & Consulting Services/CIP Amendment The Department of Public Works has requested, received and evaluated a proposal from Black & Veatch to perform a Water Quality Evaluation for the City of Dover. The overall objective of the proposed work plan is to accurately identify the source of the brown water problems and propose solutions to minimize and eventually eliminate the problem. Staff requested an amendment to the Capital Investments Plan (CIP) that would allow staff to defer the Cast Iron Main Replacement/Lining Project and the Southeast Water Loop Project for one fiscal year. The funds originally set aside for this work would be used to fund the Water Quality Evaluation in the amount of $90,000 ($50,000 from the Cast Iron Main Replacement/Lining Project and $40,000 from the Southeast Water Loop Project). Design proposals were received from the consulting engineer in late 2004 for the Southeast Water Loop Project and that effort yielded a design proposal of $72,000, which exceeds the current year’s budget for the project. In addition, staff has not derived enough information to date to identify the segments of the water distribution system that are most in need of replacement and/or relining. The Water Quality Evaluation will be segmented into three (3) specific tasks (data evaluation, testing and consulting) in addition to an allowance for on-call services. The highlights of the work will include a corrosion evaluation, coupon testing, lead/copper rule compliance, impact of pending regulations and a technical memorandum which will outline a rehabilitation/replacement program based upon generally accepted practices to prioritize rehabilitation to best manage the City’s distribution system assets. Mr. DePrima reminded members that this item was on the last agenda; however, it was removed due to concerns with an outstanding contract with Black & Veatch. He noted that the City’s utility attorney feels comfortable moving forward with the contract, with the stipulation that he be involved in writing the acceptance letter so that he can express his point of view of the implications of the existing contract. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig stated that there are issues in the industry regarding lead and copper rule compliance. He noted that staff has been performing lead testing in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, which have had favorable results; however, there are proposed changes to the federal regulations which staff needs to prepare for when moving forward. Mr. Koenig advised members that he did not anticipate that the Water Quality Evaluation would result in recommendations for large scale capital projects. He also noted that the current Capital Investment Plan proposal includes $100,000 under Cast Iron Main Replacement/Lining and the rebudgeting of the design cost for the Southeast Water Loop project for FY2006.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 3 Staff recommended approval of the requested amendment to the CIP to defer the Cast Iron Main Replacement/Lining Project and the Southeast Water Loop Project for one fiscal year to move forward with the Water Quality Evaluation and to authorize staff to execute the consulting agreement with Black & Veatch to perform the Water Quality Evaluation in the amount of $90,000. Mr. Ruane moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, with the understanding that the acceptance letter be provided to the utility lawyer for inclusion of his view of the implications of the existing contract. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sadusky and unanimously carried. Mr. Snaman moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 6:24 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carleton E. Carey, Sr. Chairman CEC/jg/tm S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Committee-Minutes\2005\01-24-2005 Utility.wpd Attachment Attachment #1 - Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Street W idths

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting was held on January 24, 2005, at 6:39 p.m. with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Mr. Slavin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Shelton and Mr. Shevock. Members of Council present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Ruane, and Council President Williams. Mayor Speed was also present. Noting that the meeting of January 10, 2005 was recessed, Mr. Salters moved to reconvene the meeting, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. Revised Purchasing Policy During their Regular Meeting of January 10, 2005, members considered proposed revisions to the City of Dover Purchasing Policy. Due to time constraints, further review of the Purchasing Policy was continued until their next regular meeting on January 24, 2005. Mr. Salters requested members to provide written suggestions to the Finance Director, Mrs. Mitchell, prior to the meeting. Mr. Shelton stated that he had submitted ten (10) or more questions to Mrs. Mitchell and he was satisfied with the responses he received from both her and the Purchaser. Mrs. Mitchell noted that Mr. Shelton’s questions/suggestions (in bold) and her responses (in italics) were as follows: How do you negotiate a bid that was publicly opened without giving others a chance to rebid? You may negotiate with a vendor if only one (1) bid is received or if the initial solicitation was a request for proposals. 3.9 Right to Reject - This statement must be included on the request for proposal form. The form has been revised to include the statement. 3.17 - Authorized Personnel - Requested to delete the last sentence and add “A list of authorized signatures can be obtained from the City of Dover Finance Office as stated in Section 9.3. Mrs. Mitchell noted that Mr. Shelton’s intent was to require the departments to submit names to Finance, not to provide names to the vendors. If amended in this way, the City could not deny any vendor a complete list of employees authorized to purchase goods. 4.1 - Request for Proposals - a. - Final Award - This statement must be stated on the RFP. Some quotes expire after 60 days due to market volatility for some items. This item will be included on the RFP. 4.3 - Total Cost Over $7,500 to $25,000 - Revise the second sentence in the second paragraph to read “A purchase order must be issued to include, but not limited to, the above amount”. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the title of the section had been revised to make the amount clear; therefore, it would not be necessary to include the statement. Section 6 - Receiving, 6.2 - Revise the third sentence to read: “The person receiving the goods and signing the receipt document must verify the quantity and item description part number with the purchase order or any other document and must check the condition of the items/packages to make reasonably sure that there are no problems with the delivery.” This sentence has been amended.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 2 Addition of 7.6, as follows: “Credit cards cannot be used for personal business.” Section has been added. 8.1 - Invoices and Payments - Revise second sentence to include . . . purchase order number.” This is covered in the section regarding payments and invoices, which specifies the need for a copy of the purchase order and invoice. Mr. Carey noted that the first sentence in Section 3.16 G had a typographical error and should be amended to read “Minority vendor preference shall be three percent (3%) of the value of the award.” Referring to 3.11 - Subdividing the Purchases - Mr. Ritter asked how purchases would be monitored and if they should be willing to subdivide purchases with Council’s approval. Mrs. Mitchell stated that subdivision is not usually approved. Mr. DePrima, City Manager, noted that blanket bids may appear to be split bids when they are not. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of the Revised Purchasing Policy, as amended (Attachment #1), seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. Mr. Hogan moved to adjourn the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting of January 10, 2005, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Agenda Additions/Deletions Mr. Shelton requested that item #2, Post Retirement Benefit Investments, be removed from the agenda. Mr. Hogan moved to remove item #1, Revised Purchasing Policy, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried. Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried. Amendments - Pay for Performance Policy Mr. DePrima advised members that feedback received from department heads and Council members following last year’s pay-for-performance evaluations included suggestions on revising the evaluation to reduce the total size of the document by combining redundant areas and combining competencies. It was also suggested that an evaluation be developed specifically for Council appointed employees that better addresses their reporting relationship and accountability to Council. Members were provided two (2) revised evaluations which were developed for use effective May 1, 2005. One evaluation was created for Council appointed employees and one for Non-Council appointed employees. Council appointed employees have additional bullets indicated within the competencies which refer to Council and the Mayor and their relationships with the appointees.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 3 Mr. DePrima noted that other changes include the removal of Table 2 on page 1. This information is noted in the instructions and combined with the weighting of the positions and will provide for easier reference. Additionally, performance points are now noted next to the performance rating definitions. Previously, the points were noted in the instructions that were included within the evaluation. He also advised members that the competency elements were combined to eliminated repetition, resulting in a reduction from 16 to 7 competencies. Employees who are not supervisors are still evaluated on one less competency. Some bullets were removed from the competency while others were added after the revised competency was created. Other competencies were moved to another competency where it more appropriately applied. Listed below are the revised competencies and the previous competencies. Revised Competencies Previous Competencies Accountability and Leadership Accountability and Leadership Communication and Customer Service Communication, Relations with the Public and Customer and Accountability Job Knowledge Job Knowledge, Continuing Education and Innovation Planning, Organization, Problem Solving Planning and Organization, Problem Solving and Decision Making and Decision Making and Leadership Relationships within the Organization Relationships within the Organization Supervisory Skills Supervisory Skills, Employee Evaluation and Employee Development Work Management Work Management, Work Habits and Communications The competency Financial Management was deleted from the evaluation because it applied to only a very few employees within the City, e.g., department heads. Often supervisors were rating individuals in this category who only order office supplies, which was not the intention of this competency. Mr. DePrima noted that the Development Plan section has been renamed Employee’s Personal Enrichment Plan. Staff recommended approval of the changes in the pay-for-performance evaluations and core competencies to become effective May 1, 2005. Concurring with Mrs. Williams, Mr. DePrima suggested that Part 4 be renamed “Employee’s Professional Development Plan”. Mr. Ruane expressed concern with the “Unplanned Assignment” section and asked if consideration had been given to providing an addendum to the original goals and objectives so that the evaluation is based on all known assignments. Mr. DePrima advised members that the policy has been amended

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 4 to include a quarterly review by the supervisor and manager to determine if any unplanned tasks will be assigned mid-year. Those tasks would then be incorporated in the Planned Assignments. This should result in unplanned assignments appearing only in the fourth quarter. For clarification, Mr. Hogan suggested that the title of this section, “Major Unplanned Assignments and Result Achieved” be renamed as “Additional Tasks Assigned and Results Achieved”. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of the amendments to the Pay for Performance Policy, as amended, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. Disposal of Land - Hanson House - 134 E. Water Street The Hanson House, 134 E. Water Street, (Tax ID# ED2-05-077.09-050-380) is located on a 46.75’ x 150’ parcel west of and adjacent to the Delaware State Education Association building at 136 East Water Street. On the property is a 950 square foot, two story frame structure with a mansard roof. The building is considered historic and dates to the mid-1700s. The City purchased the property in 1984 for the purpose of housing the Delaware League of Local Governments. The League occupied the site until 1996 when the building was determined to be no longer habitable. In 1999, the City, in partnership with Preservation Delaware, applied for and received a Transportation Enhancement Grant for $144,000. The total project cost was estimated at $180,000 and the $36,000 difference between the grant and the total project cost was to be contributed by the City and Preservation Delaware. The plan was to restore the building and turn it over to Preservation Delaware for use. After preliminary design work, it became evident that additional funds were needed for construction and required archeological work. The Department of Transportation (DelDOT) increased the total grant award to $323,000 to cover design work, archeological surveys, and restoration and stabilization of the building; however, it was not intended to cover costs for making it habitable and Preservation Delaware was to be responsible for those additional funds. In 2004, two efforts were made to bid the project. In both instances, the bids were over $395,000 for construction only to cover exterior restoration and stabilization. Mr. DePrima stated that it is now clear that the building is far too deteriorated to be restored and demolition is warranted. However, the building’s historic and architectural value can be somewhat preserved by selling the property to a buyer who would be willing to construct a modern replica of the building for office use with an appropriate addition and parking lot. The size of the lot would preclude a much larger building being built. In addition, this path would be most likely to be approved by the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission and have the least opposition from residents who value historic preservation. One potential buyer has come forth supporting this concept. In accordance with the City of Dover Procedure for Sale and Disposition of Real Property, the property has been evaluated and no City departments have a need for it. The current zoning is I/O (Institutional Office) and changing the zoning would not enhance the value of the lot. The procedure encourages the sale of surplus land through auctions or sealed bids. In this case, advertising for sealed bids is recommended.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 5 It was noted that, due to time constraints, staff requested that this matter be considered during the Council Meeting later this evening for final approval and recommended that City Council: 1) declare the property surplus and agree that it would be in the best interest of the City to sell it; 2) have the City Manager make a determination of minimum value; 3) authorize the City Manager to publicize pertinent information on the property and its availability for purchase to the general public by placing ads once a week for two weeks in local newspapers and to accept sealed bids for the property on behalf of the City Council; 4) have as a condition of the sale that an accurate replica of the existing exterior of the building be placed on the property after the sale, and that the seller is responsible for all Planning Commission and Historic District Commission approvals as well as property demolition costs; 5) hold a public hearing February 14, 2005; 6) award the bid after the public hearing pending results and an affirmative vote by Council to sell the property. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mr. DePrima stated that Council would ultimately decide if they wished to accept a bid for less than the minimum value. Mr. Ritter asked how they could prevent the purchaser from demolishing the building and replacing it with something other than a replica of the Hanson House. Mr. DePrima stated that he would be consulting with the City Solicitor to determine which stipulations, covenants, or restrictions should be included in the contract. Mr. Ritter indicated that he was in favor of selling the property if it could not be repaired for $320,000. Mr. Carey suggested that, if the property is sold, a right-of-way should be retained for access to the City-owned utilities on the property and an easement for the utilities to remain in place. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Mr. Slavin moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 7:03 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Reuben Salters Chairman RS/jg/tm S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Committee-Minutes\2005\01-24-2005 LF&A.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Revised Purchasing Policy

ATTACHMENT #1 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADM INISTRATION COM M ITTEE M INUTES 01/24/2005 CITYOF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY

CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY SECTION 1 - THE PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of the adoption of a purchasing policy is to establish the authority, limits and procedures relating to the purchasing of materials, supplies, equipment, construction, Public Works type contracts, and professional services. SECTION 2 - ETHICS IN PURCHASING 2.1 Acceptance of any gift items or any free services for personal use is PROHIBITED, and all employees and appointed officials must not become obligated to any supplier/firm and shall not conduct any City purchasing transactions from which they may personally benefit. All City of Dover Departments involved in the purchasing process must refrain from any activities that would constitute or lead to a conflict of interest with a supplier or contractor. 2.2 While purchasing goods and services for the City, the procedures and guidelines which are described in this purchasing policy are to be strictly followed. All purchasing related records must be kept in the Central Services Department for the period prescribed in the State Bureau of Archives Retention Schedule. These records may include, but are not limited to, request for proposals, vendor proposals, analysis of proposals, change orders and a copy of the purchase order(s). 2.3 The Information Technology Department is to provide a technical review of all specifications for computer software and hardware purchases regardless of cost. The applicable Information Technology personnel should be consulted on all bid evaluations for computer hardware, software, or other related equipment. 2.4 No agreement or contract shall be entered into, nor expense incurred by any division, which will result in an obligation in excess of the appropriation made to the division. It is the division’s responsibility to see that funds are in the proper accounts before obligating or expending funds. If the funds are not in the proper account, the transaction will not be processed. The department must request a transfer of funds through the Finance Department. Override of funds availability must be approved by either the Finance Director or the City Manager. SECTION 3 - PURCHASING AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURES GUIDELINES FOR MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES This section outlines the purchasing limits and guidelines for materials and supplies based on the purchase amount. For the purpose of this policy, the purchase amount is considered the purchase order line item or total purchase order amount. Warehouse stock must be reduced to the item’s reorder level prior to using open market purchases as authorized by this policy. Multiple purchase orders issued by a department for the same items during the same time frame in an attempt to negate the purchasing policy restrictions will be considered a clear violation of the purchasing policy. Please refer to section 3.11. 3.1 PURCHASES FOR $2,500 OR LESS 2 of 12

Purchases for $2,500 or less must be authorized at the department head level. 3.2 PURCHASES OVER $2,500 TO $25,000 All purchases with an estimated value of $2,500 to $25,000 each will be made by Central Services through written quotations from vendors. The department should enter the bids into the HTE system, Purchasing/Receiving Menu, or send to Central Services through interdepartmental mail. A list of at least three potential vendors must be supplied to Central Services. If fewer than three (3) vendors are supplied, justification must be included. Quotations will be solicited from all potential vendors. Purchases of fleet vehicles and associated equipment under $25,000 shall not require Council approval when the purchases have been approved in the budget for the then current fiscal year. However, no vehicle designated as a replacement for any vehicle then currently owned by the City of Dover shall be purchased or ordered for purchase unless and until the then currently City-owned vehicle has been mechanically evaluated and determined by Fleet Maintenance to be no longer reliable for use in its then current capacity. All items within the amount budgeted must have a vehicle/equipment replacement request completed and forwarded to the City Manager for approval. Items over the amount budgeted must attach a budget amendment form to the vehicle/equipment replacement request showing from what budget funds will be transferred to cover the amount over budget. The purchase shall be awarded based on the lowest and the best quotation. Any purchase order over $2,500 requires the approval of the Finance Director and the signature of the City Manager. Fax and email quotations are acceptable for this category. Item numbers, quantities, unit cost, and extensions must be completed on every purchase order when purchasing materials or paying for contracted labor at hourly rates. 3.3 PURCHASES FOR $25,001 AND ABOVE: A) All purchases with the estimated value of more than $25,000 shall be made by Central Services. The department should enter the bid through the HTE system, Purchasing/Receiving Menu, or send to Central Services through interdepartmental mail. A list of at least three potential vendors must be supplied to Central Services. These bids will be made through formal public bidding. Public bidding will consist of advertising for bid proposals at least once in a local daily newspaper and once in a regional daily newspaper two weeks ahead of the bid opening. It is in the best interest of the City of Dover to receive numerous bid proposals. Additional advertising is up to the discretion of the purchaser. All bids shall be sealed bids. B) The lowest and/or most responsive bid will be accepted. C) Bids will be opened publicly. The time and the date of the public bid opening shall be stated in the public notice for bids. D) Bids are to be delivered to the Office of the City Clerk, 15 East Loockerman Street, Dover, Delaware 19901. They will be opened in the presence of the City Clerk or her/his designee. All bids shall become public record and shall be available for public inspection after it has been determined that there is no proprietary information within the bids. Copies of bids will not be provided to competing vendors. The 3 of 12

CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY documents related to the bids and award of the contracts shall be retained for a minimum of three years for unaccepted bids and five years for accepted bids by the Central Service Department. After this period, they may be destroyed by the Central Services Department following the internal guidelines in place by the City Clerk’s Office and the State Bureau of Archives Retention Schedule. E) All Public Works and utility type contracts shall follow the provisions of State of Delaware Code Title 29 as to the procurement of materials and professional services if applicable. (Funded by State/Federal programs; see, Section 5 of this policy, also.) F) For materials, supplies, equipment, and construction work, the department requesting the quotations will supply Central Services with specifications. Such specifications should rigorously meet the need of the City of Dover, but not be so all inclusive as to effectively eliminate all but one vendor. G) Purchases of materials, supplies, equipment and construction work exceeding $25,000, including purchases through State of Delaware contracts, and sole vendor items, shall require Council approval. H) Purchases of fleet vehicles and associated equipment in excess of $25,000 shall not require Council approval when the purchases have been approved in the budget for the then current fiscal year. However, no vehicle designated as a replacement for any vehicle then currently owned by the City of Dover shall be purchased or ordered for purchase unless and until the then currently City-owned vehicle has been mechanically evaluated and determined by Fleet Maintenance to be no longer reliable for use in its then current capacity. All items within the amount budgeted must have a vehicle/equipment replacement request completed and forwarded to the City Manager for approval. Council approval is always required when the purchase is from a sole vendor, or when the vendor is not the low bidder, or when the purchase price is higher than the budgeted amount for that vehicle. I) Faxed and email bids are not acceptable for this category. J) The City of Dover is permitted to use state, county, municipal, and other government or private company contracts to purchase material once it has been determined that the procedures outlined within this policy will not be violated. Any deviation from this policy for the purpose of cooperative purchasing must be approved by the City Manager prior to entering into any purchase agreement. K) When purchasing equipment or materials for which a trade-in is being offered, the evaluation criteria must be provided to Central Services by the requester. Following determination of product acceptability, if any is required, bids will be evaluated to determine which bidder offers the lowest cost to the City in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the invitation for bids. For asset accounting purposes, the full purchase price, not including any trade in value, must be entered on the purchase order. Any trade-in allowance must be added to the purchase order as a negative item. If a temporary funds override is required, it must be approved in advance in accordance with paragraph 2.4 of this policy. In the event the trade in has not been fully depreciated, any value in excess of the trade-in allowance will be charged to the department. 3.4 VENDOR REFERENCES: 4 of 12

CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY For the purchases in Section 3.23 described previously, vendor references may be checked. This will be done to verify the bidder's ability to perform the contract requirements, the quality of work and the ability to meet obligations in case of non-fulfillment of the contract. 3.5 STANDARD FORMS: All purchasing related forms and bid documents are developed and standardized for the City of Dover by Central Services. No substitutions of the City of Dover purchase order form or other standardized forms will be permitted. 3.6 BID NOTICE: The departments are responsible for supplying Central Services with detailed and clear bid specifications for materials, supplies, equipment, and construction work. The bid notice prepared by Central Services shall provide the specifications or details of how vendors can obtain specifications. The bid notice shall also specify the closing date, time and place for receiving the bids, opening of the bids, where potential bidders may obtain contract documents, and the fee for each contract. A fee in an amount capable of recovering the cost of preparation of the specifications may be charged when specifications are picked up by the vendor. 3.7 BID BOND: A bid bond or certified check in the amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the bid amount shall be required with each bid for construction work, materials, supplies, or equipment over $25,000. The requirement for a bid bond may be waived by the Central Services Purchaser when the bid is for items being purchased for stock. A bid bond may be required by the requesting department regardless of the dollar value of the bid. The check or bid bond of the bidder to whom the contract is awarded will be forfeited to the City of Dover as liquidated damages in case the contract and performance bond are not executed within fifteen days after receiving official notification of award. 3.8 PERFORMANCE BOND: A performance bond shall be required from the successful bidder for a construction contract. Such a bond shall be for the full amount of the contract. If the contractor fails to provide such a bond or a binder within fifteen days of the award of the contract, the award of the contract or the contract shall be void. Other insurance or bonds as required by State and/or Federal laws shall be furnished by the contractor. The amounts and the types of the bonds and insurance required shall be disclosed in the bid specifications. The bond shall be released by the City of Dover upon successful completion of the contract and upon a detailed inspection of the contracted work. 3.9 RIGHT TO REJECT: 5 of 12

CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY The City of Dover shall have the right to reject any or all bids if deemed to be in the best interest of the City. 3.10 COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS: All bids submitted to the City of Dover shall be such as to comply with the applicable local, state and federal requirements. 3.11 SUBDIVIDING THE PURCHASES: The City of Dover departments shall not subdivide purchases or contracts to avoid the requirements of this purchasing policy. 3.12 INSPECTION AND FULL PAYMENT: Upon receiving materials and equipment and upon completion of construction, the City of Dover shall cause a detailed inspection. Full payments for the purchases will be made only upon the department head's complete satisfaction as to the fulfillment of all of the conditions of the contract. The department will notify Central Services that the purchase order may be released for payment. 3.13 WARRANTIES: The department requesting the material or service shall monitor and maintain all warranties. 3.14 STATE CONTRACTS: When it is advantageous and possible to obtain an item through the State contract, the purchaser will use the State contract firm for the purchases. 3.15 CHANGE ORDERS: If, after a purchase contract is awarded, it becomes necessary to add items/work because of unforeseen findings or a scheduled change, a change order can be issued as follows: A) Due to unforeseen changes, department heads are authorized to sign purchase order changes on purchases of equipment/vehicles when the amount of the item is still within the amount budgeted for that item B) For purchases under Section 3.2 the Purchaser is authorized to sign purchase order changes up to and including 25% of the original purchase amount when the total dollar value of the purchase order does not exceed $25,000 and the amount of the item is still within the amount budgeted for that item. Change orders that increase the overall dollar value of the purchase from a value below $25,000 to a value above $25,000 must be approved by the City Manager. C) For purchases under Section 3.3, the City Manager is authorized to approve change orders as follows: 6 of 12

CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY i) 25% of the original purchase amount when the purchase is made on a unit cost basis, the purchase is within the approved budget and/or the approved Council Action Form, and the purchase does not exceed $500,000. ii) 15% of the original purchase amount when the purchase is made on a unit cost basis, the purchase is within the approved budget and/or the approved Council Action Form, and the purchase is greater than $500,000 but less than $1,000,000. iii) 10% of the original purchase amount when the purchase is made on a unit cost basis, the purchase is within the approved budget and/or the approved Council Action Form, and the purchase is greater than $1,000,000. 3.16 EXCEPTIONS: A) Sole Vendor: The provisions of this policy will not apply in cases where there is only one vendor providing the materials, equipment, supplies or construction. In these cases, advertising is not required. If the purchase is over $25,000 however, it must be presented to Council for approval. Sole vendors must be justified in writing to Central Services. B) Items placed on blanket bid for warehouse stock shall not be subject to Council approval as these items are purchased as individual units and not in blocks. C) Negotiations: In a purchasing situation where negotiations are involved with the vendor(s), the provisions of this policy may not apply. Notwithstanding the above, negotiated contracts for over $25,000 will be approved by the City Council. D) Used Materials and Equipment: For the purchase of used or surplus materials or equipment, the provisions of this policy may not apply. Purchases of $25,001 must be presented to Council for their approval. E) Continuity of Service: When, because of a breakdown or accident, it is necessary to obtain materials or equipment to continue service to the citizens, the provisions of this policy may be waived by the City Manager. For no other reason should a purchase order be issued for CONTINUITY OF SERVICE. F) Emergency: In situations of emergency, acts of God, strikes and the like, the rules of this policy may not apply. The Mayor or City Manager will be responsible for making a decision as to the existence of the emergency. G) Minority Vendor Preference: 7 of 12

CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY Minority vendor preference shall be three percent (3%) of the value of the award. The vendor must identify qualification and claim to the preference on the submitted bid documents. The vendor must be identified in the certification directory maintained by the State of Delaware, Department of Administrative Services, Office of Minority and Women Business Enterprises to qualify for this preference. This preference is to be considered as a stand alone and cannot be added to any other preference that may be allowed. H) Local Vendor Preference: Local vendor preference shall be considered for materials, equipment, construction contracts, and utility contracts. Local vendor preference shall be three percent (3%) of the value of the award. The term local vendor is defined as a gradually increasing range with preference assigned as follows: Rule 1: Vendor located within the city limits of the City of Dover. Rule 2: Vendor located within Kent County (if no vendor qualifies under Rule 1) Rule 3: Vendor located within the State of Delaware (if no vendor qualifies under Rules 1 & 2) In the event that no vendor qualifies under rules 1, 2, or 3 no local vendor preference shall be awarded. 3.17 AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL: Only authorized personnel are allowed to purchase goods for the City of Dover. The authorized signature must appear on the purchase order. The authorized signature must be on record in the Finance Office. 3.18 PRE-QUALIFYING BIDDERS: The City reserves the right to pre-qualify bidders. This pre-qualification does not prohibit the City from determining, in its sole opinion, the most suitable bid for the particular product or projects. 3.19 PREPARING SPECIFICATIONS: The department requesting the purchases through Central Services will prepare the complete specifications and submit them to Central Services. SECTION 4 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GUIDELINES This section provides the guidelines and procedures for the procurement of professional services which are not covered by Chapter 69, Sub-Chapter II of the State of Delaware Code which relates to Public Works and utility type contracts. SCOPE AND EXAMPLES: Examples of the professional services covered under this section are: consulting for a rate study, audit services, financial services, and computer related consulting. These are only examples, and the scope of the provisions of Section 4 is not limited to these examples. CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NOT INCLUDED: 8 of 12

CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY For clarity, it is reaffirmed that the following services are not covered by the provisions of this section: Services within the scope of the practice of architectural, professional engineering, professional land surveying, landscape architectural services and geology. These services are covered under Chapter 69, Sub-Chapter II of the State of Delaware Code when applicable. 4.1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Evaluation of proposals must adhere to the following guidelines: a. Determine what proposals are acceptable and unacceptable b. A determination that a proposal is unacceptable shall be in writing, state the basis for the determination and be retained in the procurement file c. The offeror shall not be afforded an opportunity to modify its offer Negotiation with individual offerors a. The department can negotiate with individual offerors after their proposals are opened. b. Formalized procedures should be established and consistently applied to each offer c. Disclosure of one offerors price to another is prohibited d. The department must send a written request for best and final offers setting forth the date, time, and place for submission of best and final offers e. The department must inform the offerors that if they do not submit a notice of withdrawal or a best and final offer, their immediate previous offer will be construed as their best and final Final Award a. The contract shall be awarded within 90 days of the closing date b. The department shall award a contract to the offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be most advantageous to the City c. The determination shall explain the basis of the award d. Central Services shall notify each unsuccessful offeror in writing of the award 4.2 TOTAL COST UP TO $7,500: The purchasers are encouraged to invite a minimum of two written proposals from the service providers. The decision to award the contract for professional service shall be based on performance track records, fees, time schedule and known quality of work. Fax and email proposals are acceptable for this category. 4.3 TOTAL COST OVER $7,500 TO $25,000: For procuring professional services covered under this section, the purchaser shall use the "Request for Proposal" method and in conjunction with the Central Services Purchaser send requests for proposals to available service providers. The request for proposal will clearly include the following: 1) scope of work 2) schedule for work 3) request to provide fees and expenses 4) last date for submitting the proposal 5) address, contact person and phone number. 9 of 12

CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY The services procured under this provision must have the approval of the department head. A purchase order must be issued to include, but not limited to the above, for the total amount, providing details and a reference of the professional services agreement number, if any, and the location. Fax and email proposals are acceptable for this category. 4.4 TOTAL COST MORE THAN $25,000: For professional services with fees and expenses totaling more than $25,000, the City Council's approval is required. Fax and email proposals are NOT acceptable for this category. 4.5 SUBDIVIDING THE PURCHASES OF SERVICES: The City of Dover departments shall NOT subdivide the purchase or the contract for professional services to avoid the requirements of this purchasing policy. 4.6 DOCUMENTATION: In the event that a firm/consultant under contract to the City of Dover issues a bid/proposal as part of their contract, the original documents must be provided to the City. The final determination for all awards shall rest with the City. 4.7 CHANGE ORDERS: The same procedures as outlined in paragraph 3.15 will apply to professional services in regards to change orders. SECTION 5 - PUBLIC WORKS TYPE CONTRACTS AND CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES "Public Works Contract" means any contract for the construction, reconstruction, alteration or repair of any public building, road, street, highway or other public improvement, the cost of which will be paid with public funds. "Certain Professional Services" means those services within the scope of the practice of architecture, professional engineering, professional land surveying, landscape architecture and geology. 5.1 CHAPTER 69 OF STATE OF DELAWARE CODE: The provision sections of Chapter 69, Sub-Chapters IV and V are hereby adopted by reference (Appendix A) by the City of Dover. SECTION 6 - RECEIVING 6.1 No employee shall pick up or receive goods without his or her supervisor's authorization. Any items over the purchase amount of $2,500 will be received by Central Services receiving staff. In the case of a special project, deliveries may be made to the job site, but should be coordinated through Central Services. 10 of 12

CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY Central Services will take charge of the delivery ticket for file and paying of the invoice. 6.2 While taking delivery of items over the bid amount of $2,501 the individual accepting the item will sign any one of these documents: Receiving/payment copy of the purchase order, vendor's invoice, delivery slip or packing ticket. The person receiving the goods and signing the receipt document must verify the quantity and item description/part number with the purchase order or any other document and must check the condition of the items/packages to make reasonably sure that there are no problems with the delivery. If the problems are observed, the notes must be made on the receiving documents or the delivery must be returned. Partial delivery is acceptable. The original receipt of all documents must be forwarded to Central Services. 6.3 No City employee will sign for any item or service which is not received. 6.4 Payment for the goods will be made only to the extent the goods are received by the City. SECTION 7 - CREDIT CARD PURCHASES 7.1 The City does not encourage credit card purchases. 7.2 The City has a very limited number of credit cards for particular stores where the purchases are more easily made with a credit card or where vendors do not bill the City and credit cards are absolutely necessary. 7.3 The person using the credit card must make sure of the purchase price, quantity, quality and the necessity of the item. The person must sign as required and turn in the purchaser's copy of the credit card slip to the department immediately for processing and information. 7.4 The credit card must be used only by authorized personnel, and cannot be used for personal business. 7.5 All credit cards shall be handled through the Finance Department as outlined in Procedure F346. SECTION 8 - INVOICES AND PAYMENTS 8.1 For payment purposes, the original invoices must carry the following: approval stamp, authorized signature, and date. Purchases over $2,500 must also include a purchase order. Invoices are to be sent directly to Accounts Payable after the department head has coded and signed them (signature stamps are not permitted). Invoices for vendors not loaded in HTE must be accompanied by the City of Dover new vendor form and a completed IRS form W-9, both of which are located in public documents. 8.2 The purchaser/authorized personnel must note that it is the City's policy to take all discounts and therefore the payment documents must be submitted to Accounts Payable immediately. In other cases, it is the City's policy to pay the invoices on time and, therefore, the payment documents must be submitted to Accounts Payable as soon as possible. SECTION 9 - COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS 11 of 12

CITY OF DOVER PURCHASING POLICY 9.1 All City of Dover appointed Committees and Commissions are required to follow the City of Dover purchasing policy, unless otherwise directed by City Council. 9.2 The Committee Chair or designated City staff member is authorized to purchase materials. 9.3 A list of the names of the individuals authorized to make purchases along with each authorized individuals signature are to be submitted to the Finance Department. 9.4 A proposed work plan or budget will be required prior to disbursement of funds. 9.5 The Central Services and Finance Departments will give each Committee Chairperson a purchasing orientation. A copy of the Purchasing Policy will be provided. EFFECTIVE DATE: Adopted by City Council February 14, 2005 \\Dover_1\Finance\Secretary\POLICIES\PURCHASE\PURCHASING POLICY.wpd 12 of 12

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting was held on January 25, 2005, at 12:08 p.m. with Chairman Pitts presiding. Members present were Mr. Hogan, Mr. Ruane, and Mr. Truitt. Mr. Anderson was absent. Mayor Speed was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Truitt moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Ruane and unanimously carried. Rojan Meadows - Open Space Plan In accordance with Article 5, Section 10, Subsection 10.16 of the Zoning Code, all residential developments shall provide recreational areas in a size equal to 275 square feet per dwelling unit, or one-half acre of land, whichever is greater. However, in no case shall the City require more than 10% of the gross area of the development be so dedicated or reserved when the gross area is greater than five (5) acres. Rojan Meadows consists of approximately 39.27+/- acres of land, situated on the south side of North Little Creek Road, across from the SR-1 off ramp, west of State Route 1. Mr. Matthew Spong, Landscape Architectural Services, LLC, presented the Active Recreation Plan for Rojan Meadows, (as on file in the City Clerk’s Office). Ms. Dawn Melson, Senior Planner in the Planning and Inspections Department, reviewed the Open Space and Recreation Plan Summary. On the current plan, the volleyball area is located in Noise Zone B. Staff recommended that it be moved to Noise Zone A to comply with the Airport Environs Overlay Zone (AEOZ). Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Melson advised members that the AEOZ states that “The establishment of active recreation area, such as game fields and play grounds, should be avoided in Noise Zones B through D”. Ms. Melson stated that the volleyball area is not required and eliminating it would be an option. Mr. Ruane and Mr. Hogan noted that eliminating the volleyball area and moving the current proposed paths to the front or back of this same area would provide a larger open lawn area. Mr. Ruane moved to recommend that the plan be modified to eliminate the volleyball area, and that the path be re-aligned to allow for maximum open space in the area, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Carter advised the committee that the safety surface under the play structure would be rubber based tiles and wood carpet, as recommended by the U.S. Consumer Safety Guidelines. Mr. Hogan relayed his concerns that a crushed stone walking path would not be handicap accessible. Mr. Ruane agreed that the walking path should be a hard surface. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend that the crushed stone path be changed to either asphalt or concrete to provide a firm surface for handicap accessibility, making it more usable in terms of less maintenance, etc., seconded by Mr. Ruane and unanimously carried. Ms. Melson stated that item #7 of the staff recommendations is an advisory comment for the applicant. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Melson stated that the letter provided by Landscape

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 2005 PAGE 2 Architectural Services, LLC makes it clear that the Homeowner’s Association will maintain the active recreation area. This will also be noted and recorded on the plot plan. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend that the Rojan Meadows Open Space Plan be accepted with the committee’s modifications, seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried. Mr. Truitt moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Pitts and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 12:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, John W. Pitts Chairman JWP/rfm S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Committee-Minutes\2005\01-25-2005-PR&CE.wpd

SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE A Special Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on February 7, 2005, at 5:12 p.m. with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Mr. Hogan and Mr. Shevock. Mr. Slavin and Mr. Shelton were absent. Members of Council present were Mr. Sadusky and Mr. Ruane. Mayor Speed was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Reallocation of Community Development Block Grant Funds In accordance with the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 1.5 Timeliness Standard, the City must have a balance of funds less than 150% (1.5 times) of the annual CDBG Allocation 60 days before the end of the program year. The City’s total available CDBG funds as of January 11, 2005 were $580,292.34. The 2004 Entitlement allocation was $326,000 and the City may only have $489,000 in unexpended funds remaining at that time. At least $91,293.00 must be spent by April 30, 2005 to meet the 1.5 times threshold requirement. Failure to meet this standard may result in the City's formula-based entitlement award being reduced by the amount over the threshold. The Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) met on January 11, 2005 to propose recommendations for the reallocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that were allocated to projects that had not progressed. These included the small business loan funds (Economic Development Loan '01 $14,316.99, Strategic Economic Development '02 $35,000 and Move in Move Up Loan '02 $45,000), the House of Pride assistance (Suitable Living Environment '04, $25,000) and First time homebuyer counseling funds (NCALL '01 $14,778.85). The Committee recommended reallocating these funds for home repair assistance, first time homebuyer assistance and for the street projects. Members were provided detailed information on the unexpended CDBG funds for all program years, the CDBG funds currently available for reallocation, and the anticipated expenditures of CDBG funds by April 30, 2005. Staff recommended the reallocation of funds, as recommended by the CDAC, as follows: Funds allocated from NCALL homeownership counseling to Homeownership assistance for first time homeowners $14,778.85 2004/05 Streets Project - Funds needed to complete South New Street $57,000.00 Housing Rehabilitation Program – To be used for projects on the waiting list $62,316.99 Reallocation Total $134,095.84 Mr. Galvin advised members that there may be an additional $1,000 leftover from 1995-96 programs as well, which will be reported once the exact amount is determined. Responding to Mr. Salters,

SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2005 PAGE 2 Mr. Galvin stated that housing rehabilitation and small business loan repayments are retained for Community Development activities. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Mr. Hogan moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 5:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Reuben Salters Chairman RS/tm S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Committee-Minutes\2005\02-07-2005 Special LF&A.wpd

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council AGENDA ITEM: 2/14/2005 – 6A DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Administrative Services DATE SUBMITTED: 1/21/2005 PREPARED BY: Teresa Tieman SUBJECT: Remittance Processing System REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Finance Director EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ 55,086.62 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $73,830 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): 2005-2009 CIP page 148 and FY 05 Operating Budget page 266 – 110-2900-529-30.61, $6,100 and 110-2900-529-40.25, $67,650. TIMETABLE: Eight weeks from award of contract RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award the remittance processing system contract to the third lowest bidder, Creditron. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Currently, the City processes an average of 700 checks per day. The number of payments has increased about 20 percent over the last three years. We have reached the point of needing to add staff or automate. This system would avoid the need for hiring a part-time staff person and would save approximately five cents per check in bank processing fees. This is an estimated savings of $700 per month. It would also provide the City with an imaging system for our stub and check payments. Additional features of the system include a check audit trail, check endorsement, check encoding, and one-pass functionality – transactions are imaged, scan lines read, MICR read, endorsed, encoded, sorted, and balanced after one pass on a remittance processor. These processes require additional steps to complete now. The system is compatible with our current HTE software and will upload payment information as payment batches are processed. Six vendors responded to the request for proposal: Netvantage CREDITRON Aquracy Fairfax Diversified R.T. Lawrence Total Proposal $24,100.00 $20,650.00 $29,980.00 $46,850.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 Software Total Proposal 13,642.00 17,136.00 15,482.00 37,950.00 26,700.00 45,750.00 Hardware Total Proposal 7,208.00 11,175.002 15,000.00 1,800.00 5,250.00 Equipment Total Proposal System 5,025.001,3 6,125.623,4 4,978.80 7,325.00 12,742.00 Maintenance Public Sector -3,000.00 9,000.00 Discount TOTAL $49,975.00 $55,086.62 $47,440.805 $99,800.00 $55,825.00 $102,742.00

1 Netvantage will agree to hold its rate constant over the five-year term. However, NCR does not provide any projected rate guarantees unless the customer signs a multi-year prepaid contract. 2 Includes Total Equipment Equipment/Service. 3 Due to the 90-day warranty for NCR 7731 transport, the first year hardware maintenance is for nine months. 4 Creditron will agree to hold its rate constant over a three-year term. However, NCR does not provide any projected rate guarantees unless the customer signs a multi-year prepaid contract. 5 Total amount to be paid to Aquracy including first-year maintenance is $47,440.80. NCR maintenance is not included in total of $47,440.80. We sought demonstrations from three of the six vendors: Netvantage, Creditron, and Aquracy. Differences among vendors were mainly software related. Staff is not recommending the low bidder. Aquracy has the least amount of support staff and offered less training and setup services. They have been in business fewer years with fewer installations than the other bidders. In addition, their software does not have the flexibility and ease of use that the selected vendor’s software has. Netvantage, the second lowest bidder, while in business longer than the selected vendor, has fewer installations. Their software does not provide the flexibility that our selection’s software provides. Staff recommends the third lowest bidder, Creditron, for the following reasons: • Creditron is the only HTE Partner. Being an HTE Partner allows Creditron advance software releases so that their software can be updated before we get the new release. • Creditron currently has 150 clients of which 12 are HTE customers. No other vendors have this many clients using our current customer service software. • Creditron is a Microsoft Window Partner – their program is Windows based. • Creditron allows customization of their program to our needs. • Creditron software also is more user friendly and corrects errors with one keystroke as opposed to the correction processes of others.

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council AGENDA ITEM NO: 2/14/2005 – 6B DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Information Technology Department DATE SUBMITTED: 1/20/2005 PREPARED BY: Mark Callan, Information Technology Director SUBJECT: Information Technology Emergency Preparedness Plan REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Finance Director EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $50,000.00 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $50,000.00 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Information Technology General fund Acct # 110- 2200-516-30-29/2005-2009 CIP page 162 & 2004-2005 Budget page 293 TIMETABLE: Contract must be awarded by February 28, 2005 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award contract for Emergency Preparedness Plan to low bidder, LBL Technology Partners. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The Information Technology Department uses numerous layers of hardware, software, and connectivity equipment to provide services utilized by all city departments on a daily basis. Should a disruption occur, a detailed focused functional IT emergency plan will allow us to quickly recover business continuity. An invitation for bid was sent to 7 vendors. Five bids were received. Vendor Name Bid Bond Bid Price Comments LBL Technology Partners A Division Yes $50,000.00 Software Maintenance - of Lurie Besikof Lapidus & Co., LLP $675.00/annual charge Consulting Services BDMP Yes $65,440.00 Additional services: $141.00 – Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker, hourly rate Certified Public Consultants Program Maintenance & SunGard Availability Services Yes $157,000.00 Enhancement: $17,400.00 (One Year) $52,200.00 (Three Year) CAI Computer Aid, Inc.,Information Yes $187,500.00 N/A Technology Consulting Firm Additional costs: IBM Global Services Yes $218,410.00 Travel/Living Expenses - $25,000 invoiced monthly Upon review of the bids, LBL Technology Partners was chosen based on their price, experience with other municipalities, and methodology of disaster recovery was very thorough.

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council AGENDA ITEM: 2/14/2005 – 6C DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works DATE SUBMITTED: 1/20/2005 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Request to Purchase – Medium Duty Truck with 16’ Dump Body REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Finance Director EXHIBITS: Attachment A – Copy of Bid from Elliott Equipment Co. in the amount of $57,535.00. Attachment B - Copy of Bid Tabulation. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $57,535.00 BUDGETED: $56,000.00 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Page 233 of 2005-2009 CIP; Page 342 of the 2005 Annual Operating Budget, account # 417-5600-556.40.23. Since this bid is over the original estimated purchase price of the equipment, the Department of Public Works will be transferring $1,535.00 from the balance of the funds in account #417-5600-556.40-25. This account has $1,636.00 in unassigned funds since the purchase of a new Alignment Laser, originally estimated to cost $5,700.00, was purchased for $4,064.00. TIMETABLE: Issue an award letter on Tuesday, February 15, 2005, pending Council approval. Delivery is expected no later 120 days from the receipt of the purchase order by the vendor. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Award a purchase order to Elliott Equipment Co. in the amount of $57,535.00 for the purchase of one (1) Medium Duty Conventional Truck Cab/Chassis with 16’ Dump Body. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The Department of Public Works prepared a bid package and solicited sealed bids through the City=s Purchasing Agent. Bids were opened on Friday, January 14, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. The following vendors submitted bids: Company Location Model Bid Amount Elliott Equipment Co. Easton, MD International 4200 w/Crysteel Body $57,535.00 Barr International, Inc. Salisbury, MD International 4200 w/Wayne Body $59,701.00 Barr International, Inc. Salisbury, MD International 4200 w/Meadows Body $60,087.00 Bayshore Ford Truck Sales New Castle, DE Sterling Acterra w/Meadows Body $63,495.00 J:\MyFiles\Projects\Paperless Packet\ActionForm.wpd

COUNCIL - 2-14-2005-8 WHEREAS, in August 1999, at the request of the State of Delaware Economic Development Office, the City of Dover purchased 387 acres of property located on White Oak Road, known as the Garrison Farm; and WHEREAS, the property was purchased specifically for economic development purposes for the City of Dover and, as such, was proposed as a high technology business park, which has not been successful thus far. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET, HEREBY FORMALLY ESTABLISHES THE GARRISON TRACT COMMISSION, WHICH SHALL: 1. Serve as an ad-hoc committee to consist of six (6) to nine (9) members appointed by the Council President, who shall designate the chairman of the Garrison Tract Commission; the chairman shall be responsible for organizing and calling meetings as needed. 2. Have the objective of studying the marketing ability and feasibility of different development uses for the Garrison Farm and bring recommendations to the Mayor and Council for action. 3. Complete its work within six (6) months of organizing and shall submit a report to Council no later than September 1, 2005. ADOPTED: * S:\ClerksOffice\Packet\2005\Council Packets\02-14-2005\Garrison Tract Commission Resolution - Establish.wpd

FINAL READING BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1) That Article III - Definitions, of Appendix A - Land Subdivision Regulations be amended by deleting Section G - Roadway in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following: G. Roadway: A paved street or alley primarily used for vehicular traffic. The roadway width shall be measured from the vertical face of the curb to the vertical face of the curb. 1. Arterial Street and Highway: Street primarily used for fast and/or heavy traffic. 2. Collector Street: Street carrying traffic from local streets to arterial streets and highways. 3. Local Street: Street primarily used for access to the abutting properties. 4. Marginal Access Street: Local streets paralleling and adjacent to an arterial street or highway, and providing access to abutting properties and protection from through traffic. 5. Dead-End Street (or cul-de-sac): Street closed at one end, and having only one connection with any other street. 6. Half Street: Street paralleling the boundary of a subdivision and lying partly in an abutting tract. 2) That Section A - Streets, of Appendix A - Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI - Subdivision- General Requirements and Design Standards, be amended by deleting paragraphs 12 and 13 in their entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following: Appendix A, Article VI, Subdivision – General Requirements and Design Standards, A. Streets 12. Street right-of-way lines at intersections shall be connected with a curve, the radius of which shall be at least twenty-five (25) feet. The required radius may be increased by the City Engineer if the increased radius is necessary for public safety. 13. Street right-of-way and Roadway shall be as shown on the official map or development plan and, if not shown thereon, said widths for the various street types, shall not be less than follows: 13.1 Right-of-Way and Roadway widths for the various street types, with no on-street parking, shall not be less than as follows: Street Type Right-of-way Roadway Arterial 80 to 110 feet 60 to 80 feet Collector 60 feet 38 feet Local for all residential areas 60 feet 24 feet Local for Commercial areas 60 feet 26 feet Cul-de-sac and Dead Ends 60 feet 24 feet Marginal Access 60 feet 24 feet Alley, one way 16 feet 12 feet

FIRST READING - PROPOSED LAND SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT PAGE 2 13.2 The minimum roadway widths provided in Section 13.1 are to be utilized on streets with no on-street parking. 13.3 In areas where off-street parking does not exceed that required in Appendix B and on all Local Commercial streets, roadway widths shall be increased by six (6) feet for parking to be allowed on one side of the roadway and by twelve (12) feet for parking to be allowed on both sides of the roadway. These street width requirements shall not be amended by any alternative street widths provided for in §13.4 or §13.5 of this section. 13.4 In areas where off-street parking does exceed that required in Appendix B, but on- street parking is necessary or desired, roadway widths shall be increased by four (4) feet for parking to be allowed on one side of the roadway and by ten (10) feet for parking to be allowed on both sides of the roadway. 13.5 In areas where off-street parking meets or exceeds that required in Appendix B and rear access alleys are provided for parking and access to garages, roadway widths shall be increased by two (2) feet for parking to be allowed on one side of the roadway and by eight (8) feet for parking to be allowed on both sides of the roadway. 13.6 Accommodations for off-street parking must exceed that required in Appendix B, Articles 3, 4, 5 or 6, as applicable to take advantage of the street widths allowed in §13.4 or §13.5 of this section. In residential subdivisions, off-street parking requirements must be increased by a minimum of one (1) space per lot. Only one (1) off-street parking space on a residential parcel for every three (3) proposed may be enclosed in a garage. Accommodations to increase off-street parking from that required may include but not be limited to: garage placement to allow for additional parking spaces between the front yard setback and the garage, alternate side driveway entrances staggered so that they are separated by at least twenty-five (25) feet, or other design alternatives or project densities specifically requested by the applicant and as approved by the Planning Commission. 13.7 The adequacy of the proposed roadway widths and parking provided must be approved by both the City Planner and the City Engineer. Under no circumstances shall a roadway other than that required for an alley, be less than twenty-four (24) feet. 13.8 All townhouses shall be provided with rear access alleys unless the Planning Commission finds that alleys are infeasible for the development or finds that the design of the townhouses precludes their suitability. The required alley right-of-way and roadway width may be increased at the discretion of the City Manager. 13.9 All streets with townhouses or other multiplexes greater than three units per structure shall have parking on at least one side of the street. Reduction in the required roadway width below the requirements of 13.3 of this section shall not be allowed. ADOPTED: * S:\ClerksOffice\Packet\2005\Council Packets\02-14-2005\Street Widths.Final Reading.wpd