CCW Minutes and Attachments 1-3 Revised 02-13-2017

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was held on January 24, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding (departed at 8:18 p.m. and returned at 8:23 p.m.). Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:01 p.m., departed at 8:35 p.m. and returned at 8:37 p.m.), Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis (departed at 6:48 p.m. and returned at 6:51 p.m.), Mr. Cole, Mr. Hosfelt (departed at 6:50 p.m. and returned at 6:51 p.m.), Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison (departed at 8:37 p.m. and returned at 8:39 p.m.). Mayor Christiansen (arrived at 6:43 p.m. and departed at 8:18 p.m.) was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Keller and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation) and Mr. Shevock and Dr. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Councilman Hosfelt presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Report on Initial Assessment of Public Safety Issues Related to Holding Public Meetings in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, and 5 East Reed Street Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that Mayor Christiansen and the Police Chief had authorized the Delaware Information and Analysis Center (DIAC) to conduct an assessment of City Hall and some of the perimeter around that building, with some reference to the facilities at 5 East Reed Street. He expressed his belief that DIAC is a component of the State Police and the Division of Homeland Security. Mr. Koenig advised that DIAC reviewed the facility, had interviews and discussions with various members of staff, and issued an unclassified for official use only report. He stated that staff had contemplated whether or not to include this information in the meeting packet, and ultimately the decision was made not to do so and to discuss security in broad terms. He indicated that there had been escalating concern regarding security in City Hall and other government facilities for a number of years, noting that City Hall had always been generally open for people to enter. He stated that he felt the general consensus from the Mayor, Police Department, and other members of staff was that there was a need to implement a series of broad-reaching security measures in City Hall and other facilities. Mr. Koenig explained that physical improvements to the building and the surrounding areas were being recommended, as well as improvements in technology, policies, and procedures. He indicated that staff would proceed with costing out options, putting them into either the current budget or a future budget, and implementing them on a conscious schedule to provide a measure of security to staff, elected officials, and visitors to the facility. Mr. Koenig stated that a meeting was held the previous day with Captain David Spicer, Police Department; Mayor Christiansen; and Mrs. Kay Sass, Emergency Management and Public Affairs Coordinator, to discuss the general parameters of the report. He noted that this would slightly change how business is done in City Hall, but not at 5 East Reed Street. Mr. Koenig advised that the general feeling was that these measures would be implemented to the best of staff’s ability to adhere to the assessment that was done because he felt it was important that people be comfortable in the building.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 2 Mr. Hosfelt noted that for the last couple of months on Monday evenings there had been a large group present for at least the first portion of Council meetings. He suggested talking to the Fire Marshal, stating his concern that the City was not within the Code. Mr. Hosfelt stated that he thought if there had been a problem on any of those nights, there would have been issues getting people out. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that the Fire Marshal’s Office had put a unit count on the number of people who could be in the facility, noting that during the meeting held on the previous evening, a member of the Dover Police Department Motorcycle Unit had been present. He stated that there had been discussions about this with Captain Spicer and Deputy Police Chief Marvin Mailey to provide an additional measure of security. Mr. Koenig advised that some of the comments made during the Open Forum segment of the Council meeting had given people concern, noting that this may not have been intended since impressions sometimes get distorted as conversations go on. He indicated that staff would be doing what they could to address this issue in the short and long term. Mr. Hosfelt stated that he was more concerned about those standing along the back wall rather than those sitting in the audience in Council Chambers. Mr. Koenig stated that the door area is narrow, noting that there is access to the outside but there are concerns with the capacity of the area. Mr. Anderson asked what the general rating of the security assessment was for City Hall and for 5 East Reed Street. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that there were a series of recommendations in the summary area of the report; however, a score was not discussed or assigned. He indicated that he could ask if they were graded. Mr. Sudler asked what kind of tangible tool or measurement was used to assess whether there were more pros or cons in this situation. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that the gentlemen who came to do the assessment were trained individuals who look at operating procedures, the operating characteristics of the building, and what they believe are the main threats to the type of building. He explained that they do a professional assessment and look at a number of graphs, space issues, and things that they believe represent the biggest concerns for this type of facility. Mr. Koenig stated that the concerns for City Hall may be different than those at 5 East Reed Street because the facilities are different. He stated his feeling that these types of evaluations varied based on the sites and the assessors’ training. Mr. Sudler asked if it would be safe to assume that something like a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis was done, and if this was provided to the City for review. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that a series of recommendations was provided in numerical form. Quarterly Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects Mr. Rich Vetter, Executive Director, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), advised that the MPO had been conducting two (2) ongoing transportation planning studies on behalf of the City that were recommended by City staff.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 3 Downtown Dover Parking Study Mr. Vetter reviewed a presentation entitled, “Downtown Dover Parking Study - January 24, 2017.” Referring to the map of the study area, he explained that a 10-block area in the downtown commercial area was depicted. He indicated that the scope of the study included four (4) questions, as follows: 1) Is there enough parking? 2) How to communicate available parking? 3) Is the current fee structure adequate? 4) Is a parking garage warranted? Mr. Vetter noted that the final question related to parking capacity, whether a parking garage was warranted and, if so, where it would make the most sense. He indicated that the City had conducted counts regarding existing and baseline conditions for the MPO as part of this project, noting that the MPO also had a parking consultant on board. Mr. Vetter explained that they were looking at key areas in 10 focus blocks including Loockerman Street, Bradford Street, and South Governors Avenue, as well as five (5) City lots. Counts were done over the past couple of weeks, and they had looked at occupancy, in terms of whether people were just parking to drop things off or were staying for two (2) or three (3) hours at a time. In addition, Mr. Vetter stated that they were looking at the key focus areas where people were parking and staying. Referring to the photographs depicting existing conditions, he stated that the top right photo was a permanent lot on South Governors Avenue near the fire station that remained fairly vacant all day; the bottom right photo was the North Street lot which was for the most part filled throughout the day and a vibrant lot with parking, apartments, and businesses; the bottom left photo depicted Loockerman Street, which had high occupancy and turnover; and the top left photo was of Bradford Street, with a mixture of metered, permit, and two-hour free parking. Mr. Vetter noted that they had heard that there was confusion was associated with certain lots based on the signage. In terms of public involvement, Mr. Vetter advised that the MPO has a ten-member steering committee that consists of residents, business owners, and agency or City staff that would help to formulate recommendations regarding the study. He indicated that two (2) or three (3) workshops would be held, with the first workshop probably being held in the spring. Mr. Vetter explained that meetings would also be held with residents and individual business owners. He advised that the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) has a Parking Committee, is represented on the steering committee, and would be active in the study. In regard to changes in existing parking, Mr. Vetter stated that redevelopment in the downtown area would cause potential gains or losses of parking. He advised that there would probably be a loss of parking in the lot on North Street as part of development at Loockerman and a new demand for parking if the former Acme site is redeveloped, noting that these things would be incorporated in the study and included in the analysis. Mr. Vetter advised that the potential alternatives presented included a menu of options that could be expanded, and there were no final alternatives at this point. He indicated that the data had been collected and the consultant was reviewing it for the MPO and the City. Mr. Vetter indicated that the photo of the meter in the presentation depicted a smart meter in Rehoboth being used to pay by phone, which could be a potential recommendation. He stated that

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 4 technology could be used to their advantage and also suggested the possibility of sharing parking with private property owners. Mr. Vetter indicated that they were considering changes in policies and regulations dealing with finances, and that the City could potentially gain additional revenue through these changes. He explained that surface parking lots could be physically reconfigured to gain additional parking, noting that the Mayor had mentioned a parking garage. Mr. Vetter indicated that zoning may have to be tweaked to allow parking modifications that could be advantageous toward businesses. In response to Mr. Sudler’s request for clarification regarding the use of the term “turnover” in the presentation, Mr. Vetter indicated that turnover was defined as quick ins and outs, such as going to the dry cleaners or bakery. He indicated that they counted the number of license plates within an hour for eight (8) hours at a time to determine the length of time that people were parking during the study. In response to Mr. Shelton, Mr. Vetter stated that they had not yet looked at the cost of the meter depicted in the presentation versus the revenue that it could generate. He noted that the consultant had experience working in Christiana, Newark and Philadelphia. Mr. Vetter advised that a lot of cities were using smart meters. Mr. Lewis asked what the biggest obstacle was that had been observed when conducting the study as far as parking within the City. In response, Mr. Vetter stated that there was a lot of parking towards the west and the north; however, when doing the counts he found that it was hard to find parking going toward Loockerman Street and near Bradford Street. He also advised that they had met with businesses all over and heard that public safety was an issue, noting that some business owners did not want to park or have their patrons park two (2) blocks from their businesses and preferred to park as close as possible. Mr. Vetter indicated that they also heard from business owners that other business owners were parking in front of their properties, for instance on Loockerman Street, which negates their own ability to park in front. Mr. Vetter stated that this was a minor obstacle. Mr. Neil expressed appreciation for the study, stating that he hears from some that there is not enough parking or perceived parking, and from others that there is a lot of parking. He noted that Mr. Vetter had referenced the need to do a better job of indicating to people where the parking is and suggested looking to see what other areas, such as Hagerstown, Maryland and the Baltimore suburb of Towson, have done to attract parking or make it more visible. Mr. Neil stated that Towson has centralized, safe parking. He explained that it is important for people know where parking is and to be comfortable with it if downtown is to be redeveloped, especially in regard to tourism and the need to direct people to the quaint attractions of Dover, such as The Green and museums. Mr. Neil stated that the study was phenomenal and important to the growth of the City. Mr. Anderson asked if parking apps had been considered, noting that they would allow someone to find out where available parking spaces are in Dover by phone. Responding, Mr. Vetter advised that this would be an option.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 5 Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Neil about the need to let the public know where parking is available and for traffic patterns to make it accessible, noting that once people park, businesses are safe and accessible. He indicated that people may not know that parking is available on North Street due to the lack of signage and it is difficult to make left turns to access lots during the day. Responding, Mr. Vetter advised that the Schwartz Center had expressed that they feel limited during the day because people cannot park within a reasonable distance. Mr. Anderson expressed his hope that MPO would also do a study on the difficulty of making public transportation connections from outside to inside the City. Responding, Mr. Vetter advised that there were efforts being made to improve connections on Route 13, but not necessarily downtown at this point. Mr. Cole noted that there were a lot of good ideas and questioned when this matter would move forward. Responding, Mr. Vetter advised that the intent was to complete the study this summer, noting that what occurs beyond that would depend on the recommendations. Mr. Hutchison asked if the City’s current agreement with EZ Pass was working with their parking issues. In response, Mr. Vetter advised that it seemed to be working, stating that they had met with EZ Pass and had heard no issues at this point. Mr. Neil stated that during consideration of agenda item #3B, Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee Recommendations, Proposed Resolution No. 2017-01 - Complete Streets later in the evening, members would be discussing the value of walking, noting that walking for health was a position in terms of the parking issue. Mr. Slavin questioned if a vertical parking structure was within the span of the parking concerns. Responding, Mr. Vetter indicated that it was within the scope to look at the thresholds and see if such a structure would meet warrants; if building it could be justified and, if so, where it would make the most sense to build it; and whether the demand was there. He advised that they cannot say whether or not they can build it but whether it is warranted, looking at the demand. Mr. Slavin noted that he had been involved in parking issues for a long time and had heard that it appeared that there was plenty of parking; however, it was not the kind of parking that instills the directional confidence that would indicate to someone that they have arrived and are, therefore, comfortable and secure. He explained that a visitor may arrive at Disney World 20 miles before they park their car, but the signage is designed to create confidence that they do not have to worry anymore and the signs will take them exactly where they need to go. Mr. Slavin stated that this was the same at the Dover Mall and other venues, and that a vertical parking structure would contribute to the ability of people to know where they could park. He indicated that what is different now than it was 10 years ago was that the DDP has a number of ground surface areas that could be built upon, noting that it would be worthwhile to look at a public/private partnership for that kind of structure. Responding, Mr. Vetter stated that it was part of their scope.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 6 Garrison Oak Traffic Study Mr. Vetter reviewed a presentation entitled “Garrison Oak Traffic Study - January 24, 2017,” noting that this was a traffic feasibility study. Referring to the map of the study area, he stated that the study related to whether it would make sense from a warrant, traffic, and development standpoint to build a connector road between White Oak Road and North Little Creek Road, noting that North Little Creek Road was labeled as Route 8 in the presentation. He explained that the problem was where traffic would go if there was significant development in Garrison Oak. Mr. Vetter pointed out that there were residential streets off Route 1, noting that Acorn Lane was highlighted but was not conducive to heavy truck, industrial, or other traffic. Referring to the slide labeled “Acorn Lane,” Mr. Vetter noted that this road is residential, low volume, and low speed in nature, with no shoulders for the most part, and not conducive or set up for heavy truck traffic. He indicated that this would not be the most desirable alternative if Garrison Oak developed, and this was what the study looked at. He stated that they took traffic counts for the baseline condition as part of the study, as they do for every traffic study. Mr. Vetter advised that five (5) counts were taken over the past couple of months at the entrance off of White Oak Road to the industrial park, north and south Acorn Lane, and at the Route 1 and Route 8 interchange locations. In reference to the map of the Garrison Oak site, Mr. Vetter informed members that Lot 12 had been developed and Advantech was moving into Lot 13; however, 125 acres and 11 lots remained with significant potential for development and these areas were incorporated in the scenarios developed in the study. He indicated that they looked at the baseline condition to see what is currently at the location, including approximately 60 employees expected with Advantech. Mr. Vetter stated that it was hard to anticipate what would be built there, so assumptions were made in the traffic scenarios regarding 50%, 75%, and 100% build-outs. He noted that the 100% build-out included a residential development consisting of 400 or so residential units that was, at one time, known as Bay Village. Mr. Vetter informed members that levels of service were graded A through F in the same fashion as a report card, with A meaning no delay whatsoever and F is failing delay where volume would exceed capacity. He indicated that the report card based on existing traffic and the 60 or so employees from Advantech coming in was good. Mr. Vetter pointed out a B rating at Acorn Lane at Route 8. He indicated that the projected level of service with a 100% build-out of the industrial park and the 400 units of Bay Village was essentially the same as the level for today. Based on current assumptions, Mr. Vetter stated that there would be a good level of service with the 100% build out, although a few movements might be slightly worse than the current situation. He cautioned members that if a business went in that would generate a high number of trucks, such as a mini Amazon, it may lead to a worse level of service, noting that this business would have to do their own traffic study. Mr. Vetter advised that, based on what was currently known, it would probably be hard to make a case for a connector road on the east side of Route 1, although this was subject to change. Mr. Neil commented that there was a minor problem during the Firefly Music Festival and NASCAR races for the area above the Garrison Tract relating to Persimmon Tree Lane. He indicated that the people who live in Persimmon Tree Apartments, Persimmon Park Place, Wild Meadows, and down

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 7 toward Route 9 are basically cut off from Route 13. Mr. Neil stated that a road had been “promised” that would not be a formal road but a forestry type of road that would allow emergency vehicles and traffic to come down to White Oak during events. He asked if there had been any thought or discussion regarding temporary egress for the people who are trapped there and literally have to travel 13 miles round trip rather than the usual two (2) miles to get back to their area. In response, Mr. Vetter advised that he had not heard of this issue and had no specifics. He stated that this matter could be incorporated into their study if necessary and if Council had specifics. Mr. Neil indicated that he would like to formally request that this issue be incorporated because temporary egress had been discussed in Council Chambers and by the communities as something that would be done; however, nothing had moved forward. He noted that it would be strictly for temporary use and he was not looking for a four-lane, paved highway but something that would allow people to get in and out, particularly emergency vehicles such as ambulances, police, and fire vehicles. Mr. Vetter reiterated that this could be discussed or incorporated into the study and asked if there had been discussions with the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT). Responding, Mr. Neil stated that there had not; however, it had been mentioned by the Mayor and several people even before Mr. Neil was elected. Referring to Mr. Vetter’s comment about the possibility of a large business like Amazon becoming interested in the area, Mr. Hare asked if there had been any thought about possibly getting entrances and exits just to Route 1 without constructing a big access road. Referring to Route 8, he noted that coming southbound, one can get on, and going northbound, one can get off; however, someone coming from the south is stuck, and Mr. Vetter concurred. Mr. Hare asked if there was any potential for an entrance or exit at White Oak Road. Responding, Mr. Vetter indicated that he could not speak for the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), who has purview over Route 1 including funding; however, they have limits where interchanges and ramps can be put, in terms of physical spacing. He stated he thought there would be some issues with this idea and the FHA would have to look at the proximity to other interchanges, noting that the FHA is very stringent. Mr. Hosfelt indicated that Mr. Vetter’s comment might also apply to a connector road from White Oak to Route 8, and Mr. Vetter agreed. Mr. Anderson echoed Mr. Neil’s concerns, noting that the Persimmon Tree issue was one (1) of the goals in the annual planning meeting and a concern of a lot of members. Mr. Vetter asked if the City had any alignment or mapping that could be shared showing this issue. Responding, Mr. Neil stated that a broad area alongside the Wild Meadows community is rented by Chesapeake Utilities and it is the location of their gas piping from the Cheswold area to the Calpine plant. He indicated that the temporary road could go right alongside of this area as a gravel or paved road. Mr. Neil stated that the pipeline was buried deep enough that this idea could work for the four (4) to six (6) days per year when it would be needed for events including NASCAR and the Firefly Music Festival. He indicated that a fence may have to be put around the road to make sure no one tries to get down there at other times. Mr. Neil indicated that there is a problem with pedestrians in the area who will not get out of the way, and he and Mr. Hosfelt had discussed a possible sidewalk to keep people off the road; however, this would require dealing with private property. He advised that the proposed road would connect to the circular road that goes around Calpine and the whole Garrison Tract. Mr. Neil stated that there was a question of whether permission could be obtained from those who own the

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 8 land, since the land is not owned by the City or County, and Chesapeake had indicated that this was not their problem. Mr. Neil offered to show Mr. Vetter the area being discussed, which had been cleared and would be kept clear for the pipelines. Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee Recommendations Walk21 International Charter for Walking Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that the Walk21 International Charter for Walking includes a set of strategic principles related to improving communities through promoting walking as a form of transportation. She noted that these principles include: 1. Increased inclusive mobility 2. Well designed and managed spaces and places for people 3. Improved integration of networks 4. Supportive land-use and spatial planning 5. Reduced road danger 6. Less crime and fear of crime 7. More supportive authorities 8. A culture of walking Mrs. Townshend explained that the principles are consistent with many of the principles promoted through Dover's various planning efforts, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. She informed members that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee had recommended that the City sign the Walk21 International Charter for Walking to demonstrate its commitment to the principles articulated in the charter and to foster an environment that is safe and appealing for pedestrians. Staff recommended authorizing staff to sign the Walk21 International Charter for Walking on behalf of the City of Dover. Mr. Anderson expressed concern with this item, noting that it appeared to be packaged as of part of Agenda 21. He indicated that he was skeptical of the idea of government wanting to tell people what to do, building a culture of walking and car free zones, and getting people out of their cars. Mr. Anderson advised that this was not the purpose of government and stated the need for government to follow what the people want, not tell them what they want. He indicated that he did not like the idea of parts of the Charter, including lowering speeds. Referring to Section 5 of the Charter, he indicated that he did not like the idea of having more and more junctures. Mr. Anderson advised that he liked the idea of longer times for crossing but not necessarily more frequent crossings. He stated that the Charter was designed in a way to create more traffic problems to manipulate people to do what the government wants and that he did not believe this was the proper scope and role of government, which was his greatest concern. Mr. Slavin stated for the record that he disagreed with everything Mr. Anderson had said.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 9 Mr. Slavin moved to recommend authorizing staff to sign the Walk21 International Charter for Walking on behalf of the City of Dover. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. Proposed Resolution No. 2017-01 - Complete Streets Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, explained that Proposed Resolution No. 2017-01 would encompass a Complete Streets Policy. She advised that the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) has a Complete Streets Policy for State roads and State road projects which sets forth that any improvements in the right-of-way need to accommodate all users of the right-of-way. Mrs. Townshend stated that the State’s policy addresses accessibility; therefore, anytime that DelDOT improves a road, they improve handicap ramps on the sidewalks in the vicinity of the road. In addition, she indicated that when DelDOT builds a new road, sidewalks are included in the landscaping as part of the project. Mrs. Townshend informed members that the City of Dover has all of the components of a Complete Streets Policy through a variety of ordinances and policies. She noted that the City requires frontage sidewalk and sidewalks that come into the sites for all new development. Mrs. Townshend explained that staff is always looking at bicycle and pedestrian components but had never labeled this policy. She stated that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee had been working on completing applications to be recognized as a walk-friendly and bike-friendly community and one of the questions asked was whether the City had an adopted Complete Streets Policy. Mrs. Townshend indicated that, while the elements are scattered throughout City ordinances and the City is proactive in terms of having an active concrete program to keep sidewalks in good condition, there is no formal policy. She explained that the Proposed Resolution would tie all of those things together and recognize what the City already has on the books. Mr. Anderson asked if the City had a policy to keep bricks in good condition, stating that a lot of the brick sidewalks on the north side of Division Street are not in great condition. Responding, Mrs. Townshend advised that one street just north of Division Street was in particularly bad condition and was replaced with concrete sidewalk last year and that sidewalk improvements are based on the need and available funds. She indicated that in the areas where there are brick sidewalks, a lot of the replacements have been made with concrete because concrete is easier to maintain in the long term and is a more accessible surface. Mrs. Townshend stated that some improvements had been made; however, there were still some areas with bricks in poor condition. Mr. Anderson commented that it had been proposed to spend money to expand brick around Bradford Street. Mrs. Townshend advised that the concept for Bradford Street was not to expand the brick but to have brick accents with a concrete walkway. Mr. Neil moved to recommend adoption of Proposed Resolution No. 2017-01 (Attachment #1), seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 10 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held with Chairman Hare presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and unanimously carried. Discussion - Use of Levy Court Chambers Mr. Slavin stated that members may have read a news article about this item, which, in his opinion, was a little presumptive as to where the City was on this issue. He explained that this was an idea that he was attempting to vet with all members and with Kent County Levy Court about the possibility of addressing some of the needs in the Council Chambers by moving meetings to Levy Court. Mr. Slavin stated that this was not something he could have started without first going to Levy Court and asking them if it was okay, and it was okay by Levy Court to have that conversation. Mr. Slavin explained that this idea was not intended to cause any hardship on City staff, noting that this was not part of the equation initially but it would be now, because staff will have their opinion, and he will honor and respect that opinion. Mr. Slavin stated that this idea was also not intended to send any kind of message that City Council meetings are more important than any other body that meets in the Council Chambers, noting that City Council meetings are the only meetings that are televised in the Chambers. Referring to the “Evaluation of Request for Proposals - Dover Broadcast and Production Equipment (RFP 17-0016CC),” scheduled for consideration during the latter part of the meeting, he indicated that the City was possibly getting ready to invest a significant amount of money on television equipment. Mr. Slavin stated that this was only an idea at this point and was not something that the City is committed to, explaining that he cannot commit this body to it, members have to commit to it, and it is their vote to take as to whether they want to do this. He stated that, just for clarification, Levy Court voted unanimously simply to proceed with the conversation occurring at staff level to see if something could be worked out in this regard. Mr. Slavin indicated that this would be a multi-part discussion and decision involving the “Evaluation of Request for Proposals - Dover Broadcast and Production Equipment (RFP 17-0016CC),” scheduled for consideration during the latter part of the meeting, and expressed his hope that this decision would not be made in a vacuum. He noted that Mr. Koenig had briefed members of the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee on safety issues related to the Chambers earlier in the evening, that there were other components to consider, and that he believed that doing nothing was not an option. Mr. Slavin stated that if members do nothing, they put their imprimatur on the safety issues they have; on the fact that they are condoning a public space that is not ADA compliant and has never been and they do not seem to want to make that a priority; and they put their imprimatur on the overcrowding and issues that they have seen and will likely continue to see. He stated that he was interested in hearing the

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 11 discussion, noting that if members make the decision to stay, he thought there were some cost factors that they would all need to discuss and understand. Mr. Neil stated that members know that they are in a worn out building and things are going to change, noting that he hoped they would change in this area if possible. He explained that people with disabilities cannot get onto the floor of the Chambers and in order to get a wheelchair onto the floor, there would have to be a foot of length for every inch of height. Mr. Neil stated that he thought that accessibility and safety were of extreme importance. Mr. Neil indicated that his community had previously rented the County’s facilities to hold their meetings and the chambers are wonderful and have a marvelous sound system. He stated that the County has what the City basically needs, it is not terribly far away, and it is a temporary solution while members decide what they are going to do about a new municipal complex for the City. Mr. Neil indicated that since taxes are paid to the City and the County, he thought the County building would be available for the City to use if the County permits it. He stated that he knew there would be some type of cost but that he was certainly in favor of doing this on a temporary basis until members decide what they are going to do with the City’s facilities and ensure that it is accessible for people with disabilities to come in and to listen to what is going on in this body. Mayor Christiansen stated that he respected greatly and appreciated the efforts of the Council President to seek out the solutions that members need to address this issue, noting that, as Mr. Neil pointed out, it would be temporary. He stated that he thought it was incumbent on members to remember that taking advantage of the hospitality of the Levy Court should certainly be on a temporary basis. Mayor Christiansen advised that Mr. Neil sounded the alarm that members really need to do something with their own house. He expressed his opinion that members should keep the center of government here, explaining that was not to besmirch the efforts of the Council President because he thought that Mr. Slavin had gone out and sought a solution to an issue that had been put off for too long. Mayor Christiansen stated that he thought that it was incumbent on members, if they do anything, that it be on a trial and temporary basis. He advised that, despite the hospitality of the City’s good friends at the County, the center of government for the City of Dover needs to remain here and members need to address the issues of City Hall the same way that the County took the bull by the horns and addressed the issues regarding their own building. Mayor Christiansen stated his belief that the tax payers would not appreciate a meld of government, noting that he did not mean to go against something that he says all the time, Dover is Kent County and Kent County is Dover. He reiterated that he supports the efforts and the tenacity of the Council President for opening up this discussion because he thinks that it is something that they need to do; however, he echoed Mr. Neil’s concerns that ADA compliance needs, accessibility, and security need to be addressed in City Hall as well. Mr. Hosfelt stated that he mentioned this during the Council Retreat of January 6, 2017, and he agreed with Mayor Christiansen regarding this matter. He stated that he thought that this was the City’s home and members need to fix it and clean it up, and if they need to make it ADA accessible, that is what they will do. Mr. Hosfelt indicated that members should work it into the budget, figure it out, and go forward.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 12 Mr. Anderson stated that he had some concerns about this idea, explaining that he would be open to doing it when members have a definite time frame. He noted that if they were doing construction in the Council Chambers, he thought this would be a very viable option; however, he was very skeptical of an open-ended time frame and, from what he was hearing, temporary could literally mean years while members are discussing and deciding what to do, which could provide a burden that is not foreseen. Mr. Anderson indicated that those who work out of temporary offices are moving from one location to another, with an office and materials set up in one location and operation at a remote location. He advised that there would be unforeseen consequences, complications, things forgotten, and extra costs, preparation, and staff burden that were not being considered. Mr. Anderson stated that this would place the City in a situation where it could not control its own destiny and would bring a level of cost and difficulty that he was not sure the City was ready to plunge into. Mr. Lewis indicated that he had no objections to relocating on a temporary basis while addressing matters at City Hall; however, he stated that it was historic that governmental entities be kept separate between the City and County. He noted that City Hall is a historic building and place, and City residents realize this. Mr. Lewis reiterated that he would have no objection on a temporary basis but would not want to relocate there on a full-time basis or for over a year. Mr. Sudler asked if the cost of making modifications and adjustments for ADA compliance had been looked at, which would probably be the doors and aisles. Responding, Mr. Koenig indicated that he did not have a current estimate on ADA compliance for the components of City Hall. He stated that this would go back to the question of how much members wanted to invest in City Hall. Mr. Koenig indicated that there had been discussion about a new facility in a single location that did not receive a lot of reaction from the members he spoke with. He stated that the issue went back to whether to invest in these facilities, because in the long term there was a question about whether there was a parking problem. Mr. Koenig pointed out that the ceiling in Council Chambers is high and the floor could be raised by two (2) feet, which would address the ADA accessibility issue. He related this to construction that was done for the new Dover Public Library and explained that a designer could come in and install a system that fits together like Tinker Toys, and the flooring system would sit on top of it. He advised that there are many ways that architecture can address this issue, outside of simply redesigning the entire Chamber, but the question would be whether to invest in this facility versus another facility Mr. Koenig explained that the most recent discussions had led him to believe that Council was leaning toward investing in the current facilities owned by the City versus purchasing a different facility. He stated that if this was Council’s clear direction, they would engage an architect and start analyzing the costs. Mr. Koenig indicated that making a wooden door ADA compliant was not easy because it involves mechanized openings, etc. He stated that it may require a different entry to the facility; however, an architect could prepare drawings of improvements to the facility. Mr. Koenig stated that he was looking for clear direction from Council as to whether facility replacement was a top priority for the FY 18 budget, because staff was preparing that budget. In addition, he questioned how much of a priority this was, noting that there are certain triggers that would require a referendum. Mr. Koenig stated that, depending on which facility was being discussed and the composition of the staff in that facility, utility funds may be allowed to help offset the financing of facility improvements.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 13 Mr. Koenig reminded members that another discussion about broadcast equipment relating to Council Chambers was on the agenda later in the evening, and all these discussions were really tied together. In regard to whether the City would invest in this facility or shop for a new facility, he advised that the most recent indications from members were that there seemed to be more favor towards investing in the current facilities and upgrading them versus purchasing and constructing a brand new facility. Mr. Koenig requested clarification from Council in this regard. Mr. Slavin expressed the need to avoid making one decision that cascades and leads into a series of four or five decisions. He noted that in a few moments members would take up the issue of whether to commit to televising proceedings from the Chamber and would be asked to accept a bid of $151,000 for a one-time purchase, which would be the first expenditure. Mr. Slavin advised that this would not talk about the life span, annual maintenance cost, depreciation, and annual cost for operations. He indicated that he would think, by Council’s own words, that once $150,000 is spent, they would be committed to addressing the ADA and safety issues and stated that he did not want the City to suffer death by a thousand cuts in reverse. Mr. Slavin estimated that a $150,000 project would be pushed closer $500,000 by the time all the improvements are made and issues addressed just to reach compliance. He advised that part of the issue was that the staff approaches businesses that want to open in town and tells them they must be up to the fire code, etc., but does not practice what these businesses are told to do. Mr. Slavin stated that this was patently unfair and asked that members take a look at the total cost of ownership of this. He advised that he agreed with Mr. Lewis’s point, stating that his conversation with Kent County Levy Court was designed as a temporary measure until a decision is made regarding what Council wants to do. He indicated that the time may not be upon members that evening for the decisions mentioned by Mr. Koenig, but it was coming up quickly on the horizon. Mr. Sudler stated that he thought it would behoove Council to get at least three (3) estimates in regard to the modifications and bring them back to Council to make a clear decision on whether they want to invest and how much it would cost. In addition, he suggested asking Mrs. Townshend if there was a report from the City of Dover Fire Marshal in regard to which area would need to be adjusted to meet ADA compliance and, if not, if this could be provided at a later date. Mr. Sudler stated the need to see figures before making a decision. Being a contractor himself, he advised that there are ways to cut costs and still get the proper product being sought, noting the need then to figure out who could do the project at the cost. Mr. Slavin stated that he had a couple of motions to make after the dialogue, and one would be to request staff to come up with rough order of magnitude estimates. He indicated that it would be difficult to get three (3) estimates from contractors without a set of commands, noting that there was a need to first gauge if this was a level of investment that members wanted to make. Mr. Neil stated his understanding that the current building needs a lot of work and is very costly to maintain; therefore, there was a need to find out what had to be done to keep it going and if that is what members desire. He indicated that a separate issue was if Council could meet at the Kent County facility since the Chambers could not be used while construction is going on. Mr. Neil stated that there were two issues, noting that no one was talking about a permanent stay at Levy Court, but holding meetings there as a temporary device would make meetings immediately accessible. He

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 14 indicated that there is certainly parking and it is easy, convenient, and not far away. Mr. Neil stated that he concurred with what was being said and thought everyone did. Mayor Christiansen stated that a good point had been made regarding how the City could challenge people to come up to code when the City is in violation of its own code, noting that this was saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” He indicated that Mr. Neil was correct that a contingency needed to be in place. Mayor Christiansen thanked Mr. Slavin for bringing this matter to the Council floor because it was incumbent on Council to have transparency and some vehicle in place to show constituents what members are doing, whether they are sitting in the audience or at home watching on television. He advised that Councils in the past had formed committees to discuss this issue and gone nowhere, noting that the can had been kicked but landed back in members’ laps. Mayor Christiansen stated the need to grow up and do what needs to be done to be transparent and open to the citizens through a temporary arrangement; however, he also stated the need to comply with the City’s own rules in the Council Chamber and City Hall. Mr. Hutchison reminded members that the old Dover Public Library should be part of the mix, noting that he did not have any idea of the cost or what future needs the City Manager has at that location. He stated that the building is large and lots of things could be done there. Mr. Hare indicated, from a business point of view, that if this was his business he was unsure if he would pick up and move without having a plan in place and that it was incumbent on members to have a plan first. He suggested that this matter may need to be discussed as a single item. Mr. Hare stated that he did not have a problem moving temporarily; however, a plan should be in place before packing everything up and moving, and he did not want to do so without knowing how long the City would be there. He advised that he thought there were other alternatives that should be discussed. Mr. Hare stated that looking into making the current facility ADA compliant might be a temporary fix, noting that the cost was unknown. He indicated that Council must also decide whether a new City Hall was needed, noting that this had been kicked down the road for years and it was time to make a decision one way or another. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend that the City Manager be directed to work with staff to create rough order magnitude estimates to address the ADA and safety issues that were discussed during the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend that Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, and Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, initiate the dialogue with Mr. Michael Petit de Mange from the County to look at what the issues might be of a temporary space for a defined period of time for City Council meetings. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mr. Slavin reminded members that this was assuming there is a fit, noting there may not even be a fit for them to conduct their business there. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought the recommendation was premature before members have any idea of time frames and plans. He explained that it may be appropriate at a later date but that he could not support it at this time. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that it may help inform the first decision. Mr. Lewis noted that he did not think it would hurt to inquire. Mr. Sudler stated that he

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 15 agreed with what Mr. Lewis and Mr. Slavin had said, explaining that he thought that knowing what they are looking at before making decisions is always good, so there is nothing wrong with doing some research and bringing something to the table. Mr. Hare stated that he tended to agree that it would not hurt, noting that members were not going to make any commitment, they were just going to get information. Mrs. McDowell asked if members could be a little more specific about what she and Mr. Koenig were going to be looking for or asking. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that the issue is really to have staff look at the specific logistical issues involved with holding Council meetings at the Kent County Levy Court. Mr. Cole asked if this would include all committee meetings and Council meetings. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that it would be Council meetings and it may include committee meetings, depending on the discussion related to the “Possible Move of Council Committee of the Whole Meetings to Monday Evenings,” scheduled for consideration during the latter part of the meeting. The motion to recommend that Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, and Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, initiate the dialogue with Mr. Michael Petit de Mange from the County to look at what the issues might be of a temporary space for a defined period of time for City Council meetings was carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. Possible Move of Council Committee of the Whole Meetings to Monday Evenings Mr. Slavin advised members that for the better part of a year, Council Committee of the Whole meetings were moved to a Tuesday evening format, which was new for many members. He stated his belief that many members had received an analysis regarding the effect of this format and that it may or may not have affected attendance. Mr. Slavin indicated that there had been concerns previously about this move being made since it doubled the nights that had to be blocked off on the calendar. He advised that before turning the corner into year two of this arrangement, he thought it would be fair to discuss this matter to determine the pleasure of Council. Mayor Christiansen informed members that the City went to a Council Committee of the Whole (CCW) format in 1990. He explained that it was the feeling then that this format would allow members of Council two (4) fewer nights out. Mayor Christiansen indicated that previously the Safety Advisory, Utility, Parks and Recreation, and Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committees were all meeting on separate nights, causing members of Council and citizens to be out several nights during the week. He stated that CCW meetings were put in place prior to the Regular Council Meetings on Monday evenings. Mayor Christiansen stated that it had worked out very well to have two (2) committees meet prior to the Regular City Council Meeting on the second Monday of the month and another committee on the fourth Monday of the month. He advised that this allowed members of Council not only to spend more time with their families and on personal issues, but it also allowed the them to address constituent concerns. As an ex officio member of the CCW, Mayor Christiansen stated that he would wholeheartedly support the proposed change to Mondays because it had worked in the past and would work to everyone's benefit in the future, including civilian committee members and citizens. Mr. Lewis concurred with Mayor Christiansen.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 16 Responding to Dr. Stewart, Mr. Hare stated that the CCW meeting would move to the Monday evenings prior to the City Council meetings. Mr. Slavin noted that a potential issue would be that the CCW meeting would have to be completed by 7:00 p.m., and any potential executive sessions would have to be scheduled either on another evening or after the Council meetings. He stated that Council meetings typically adjourn around 8:30 p.m., which would leave time at the end of the evening for executive sessions. Mr. Slavin stated that very few Council meetings had gone past 8:30 p.m. according to the pattern over the last year. Mr. Hutchison noted that most Council representatives have jobs and that there are executive sessions before almost every Council meeting that take up the time between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. He questioned how much time would be given to Committee meetings. Mr. Hutchison stated the possibility of having Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meetings and Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meetings on one (1) Monday night and Utility and Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meetings on the other Monday. He stated that the CCW is probably the most important meeting because there is more open dialogue than at any other time. Mr. Hutchison indicated that the Council meeting is about approving the agenda and voting on the issues, and there is very little discussion when action takes place. He stated that the nice thing about the CCW meeting is that every member of Council serves on every Committee and has a vote and a voice. Mr. Hutchison indicated that the CCW was better now than at any time before; however, he urged members to allow time for it. He expressed concern that executive sessions take up a lot of time on Monday nights. Mr. Hutchison reminded members that it takes time to serve. Mr. Cole echoed Mr. Hutchison’s comments, stating that the difference in the depth of discussion since switching to the CCW format compared to his first couple of months on Council was unbelievable. He stated that most members have jobs and that he could not arrive for meetings until 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. Mr. Cole stated that he would support keeping the current meeting format. Mayor Christiansen stated his respect for Mr. Hutchison and indicated that he did not wish to do away with the CCW because he believes in the banter and interaction among the Mayor and Council, civilian members, and the public who participate in the process. He stated it was imperative to maintain the CCW; however, he thought the proposed change would streamline the operation and allow members another evening with families and loved ones, and to put toward their jobs and constituent service. Mayor Christiansen advised that he would never support doing away with the CCW because he believed it was a great process. Mr. Anderson stated that he supported the proposal and did not believe that it would interfere with the CCW, presuming that it would not start before 5:00 p.m. He indicated that it would be a more efficient use of the time. Mr. Anderson advised that the executive sessions prior to Council meetings were a relatively new invention that most bodies do not have. He stated his belief that most bodies adjourn to executive session after a meeting, which is something that Council used to do. Mr. Anderson stated that is rare to have a special executive session when an expert is brought in, such as Mr. Kirk Betts, the City’s utility attorney. He felt the proposal would allow for a much more efficient use of members’ time and would also be better for the public because it would allow for

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 17 better public attendance and input and open up the possibility of televising the CCW meeting. Overall, Mr. Anderson stated that the proposal would be better for the public and for Council. Mr. Sudler advised that he would prefer Mondays before Council meetings for the CCW, noting that he has two (2) jobs, both of which are essential. He stated that he loves to serve but it takes a lot of time and he is missing out on things he needs to do for his primary job, which pays his bills. Mr. Sudler indicated that executive sessions could be held on Tuesdays, when members could come in for a quick hour or half hour. Mr. Hare stated that he was flexible either way; however, he liked Mr. Hutchison’s comments. He advised that there is good, open conversation at CCW meetings. Mr. Hare indicated that he could attend on Mondays; however, he stated that he did not want someone saying at 6:45 p.m. that the meeting must be wrapped up and wanted to be able to continue talking. He suggested that the CCW meeting could resume after the Council meeting, even if this meant members would be there until 10:30 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. He stated that the meeting should not be cut short, even if it would be five (5) or six (6) hours long, because it would be inconvenient to have it on another day. Mr. Hare stated that having meetings on Monday and then coming back for half an hour on Tuesday would be more inconvenient that just staying later on Monday night. He noted that he was not in favor of broadcasting CCW meetings, since he thought people would talk more because they know they are on television. On behalf of the City Manager’s Office, Mr. Koenig agreed that the CCW meeting is a good opportunity for staff to listen to everyone’s opinion, including the citizen components of the CCW, and he endorsed the concept of the CCW. He advised that moving to Tuesday nights had seemed like a good idea to him initially; however, two (2) days in a row are very long days, especially if there are a lot of items on the agenda. Mr. Koenig noted that, in some cases, staff’s day starts before 8:00 a.m. and may run until 10:00 p.m. He explained that a lot of staff time goes into meeting preparation, and staff never knows what the discussion will be with respect to any agenda item and must prepare as if every item will be contentious or there will be questions or concerns. Mr. Koenig expressed concern about time if meetings were moved solely to Monday night, stating that the City is growing and the agenda is growing. He indicated that what might seem like an insignificant issue to him may be very significant to members of Council, and there would be time crunches. Mr. Koenig also expressed concern with the Utility and Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committees that have many agenda items. If meetings gravitate to one night, Mr. Koenig requested that thought be given to reducing the number of items that must go to Council for approval, and suggested altering the threshold for change order issues that must come before Council to 35% versus 25%. He stated that these types of things must be considered as part of a comprehensive package to not burden Council with every decision and to make the most important decisions the ones that come through the Committees and Council. Mr. Koenig stated that 5:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. is a long night, whether or not one is speaking. He noted that Kent County Levy Court had demonstrated their willingness in this regard, and they meet at times until 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. Mr. Koenig noted that Planning Commission meetings previously went until that time and, in his opinion, the effectiveness of those decisions at that time

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 18 of night could be questioned the next day. He stated that he favored the CCW approach and going to one night would be more efficient if it could be managed. Mr. Koenig advised that this would provide the opportunity for the CCW and Council agenda meeting on Tuesdays, which would allow another day of preparation for the next round of meetings, which was a positive; however, he reiterated his concern about fatigue from that one night. He indicated that there is fatigue regarding two nights in a row and did not know whether this was better or worse. Mr. Koenig advised that staff would do their best to meet the expectations of Council. He stated that in a perfect world it could all be done in one night, with very focused discussion. Mr. Koenig indicated that this would give everyone an extra night to interact with families, constituents, or staff to provide a better atmosphere for the City. Mr. Shevock stated that there were pros and cons, noting that the pluses and minuses could be added up, but the City of Dover was changing and there were many things to be talked about. Having been on the Committee for some time, he noted that when committee meetings were held on Monday nights, there was a big rush when it came to the end of a meeting because the Council meeting was starting. Mr. Shevock noted that in the current format the meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. and continues until everyone has their say and the meeting is complete. He stated that by going back and trying to jam everything in, the City would not get the answers it wanted and another meeting would be added on the next day. He questioned why members would not keep the format as it is, which was working better than it had before. Mr. Neil stated that members had previously discussed transparency and American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. He stated that, if the change was approved, the meeting should be televised. He indicated that he was flexible in terms of the time. Mr. Neil stated that members would get more done, have clear heads, have a chance to study the agenda and packets if meetings were held on two days rather than trying to jam the CCW meeting in earlier on Mondays and then going into a block of time in the evening. He noted that the information discussed at CCW does not appear on Council’s agenda until a later date. Mr. Neil explained that he would like to keep the current format, even though it keeps members out on two different nights, due to the efficiency and the ability for the public to come at a reasonable time to see what is being done. He stated that this was more important than trying to get it all in on one day. Mr. Neil indicated that he was available to meet on any day. Mr. Cole asked if the CCW meeting could be held on the first and third Mondays and Council meetings on the second and fourth Mondays. Responding, Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the Planning Commission meets on the third Monday of the month. She indicated that this was not set in Code and if Council chose to have committee meetings in that format, an alternative night could be selected for the Planning Commission, as long as there was advanced notice to plan. Mr. Slavin noted that he had once suggested using the vacant Monday evening for Council meetings in the workshop format for a deeper dive into issues. Mr. Hutchison asked if executive sessions could be held after the regular Council meetings, and Mr. Slavin stated that they could, and that the CCW meeting could be interrupted and recessed until the conclusion of the Council meeting.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 19 Mr. Hutchison asked to protect ample time for discussion at the CCW meeting, indicating that this would not be possible if executive sessions were held beginning at 6:00 p.m., which would allow only an hour for committee meetings. He suggested starting the CCW meeting from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and placing executive sessions at the end of the Council meeting. Mr. Hutchison advised that this was not just about Council, noting that staff and civilians also take part. Mr. Anderson agreed with keeping the CCW format, which he had voted in favor of; however, he had long been concerned with the nights. He stated that the public would be better served by knowing that the second and fourth Mondays are Council nights, which makes it simpler. Mr. Anderson advised that attendance at committee meetings was better when this was in place and he thought it would be better for public engagement and Council and would place less burden on staff; therefore, this proposal was a win-win-win. Mr. Hare reiterated that he had no problem coming in at 5:30 p.m. on Mondays for CCW meetings, but if the Open Forum segment of the Council meeting would be from 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., this would allow only an hour and a half for the CCW. He stated that if the Open Forum may go longer than half an hour, as it had in the past, and the public cannot be told that they cannot talk. Mr. Hare indicated that he did not have a problem if CCW meetings continued after the Council meetings and was flexible. He advised that he was willing to go with the majority; however, he did not want those who show up for a CCW meeting at 5:30 p.m. to have to stay until after the Council meeting until 10:00 a.m. and they should be considered. Mr. Lewis stated that he would support this measure and asked if committees would be rotated if the proposal was accepted. He asked, for example, if the second Monday would be for the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement and Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committees and the fourth Monday for the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that this would be the call of Council. Mr. Hare stated that this would depend on what was on the meeting agendas. He indicated that the good thing about this approach would be that if there was one item on the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee agenda that needed to be addressed, it could be addressed and not be deferred for two (2) weeks so staff could take measures on it. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend adoption of the Council Committee of the Whole structure used for the past year to be held on Monday evenings from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. with the ability to recess the meeting until the conclusion of the Council meeting if necessary. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried with Mr. Shevock voting no. Mr. Slavin moved to recommend that the rule of thumb be that executive sessions be scheduled at the end of the Council meetings on Monday evenings, with the right reserved to schedule sessions before the meeting if someone is coming in from the outside. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mr. Hare asked if executive sessions would held before or after CCW meetings, if CCW meetings are continued after the Council meetings. Responding, Mr. Slavin indicated that this would be at the call of Council at that time.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 20 Mr. Hare questioned if there would be a time limit for when meetings would end. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that this could be done through the agendas or that rules like this could be established. Mr. Slavin asked Mrs. Townshend if Kent County’s Planning Commission has a rule that they do not take new cases or agenda items after 10:00 p.m. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that she did not believe they did; however, the City of Dover Planning Commission does not start any new public hearings after 10:30 p.m. She indicated that this was because members have lost patience and are not focused at that point. Mr. Slavin suggested waiting to see what the traffic would bear on this issue. Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, asked if civilian members of the CCW were expected to stay if the CCW meeting recesses for the Council meeting and any executive sessions. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that they can stay. Mrs. McDowell asked if they would be expected to stay and Mr. Slavin stated that this would be up to them. Mr. Hare asked if there was a time frame for establishing this schedule. Mr. Slavin expressed his understanding that the current structure would stay in place until a date is determined to change to Monday nights. Mr. Sudler moved to amend the motion to make it effective for the first meeting in March 2017, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. The motion to recommend that the rule of thumb be that executive sessions be scheduled at the end of the Council meetings on Monday evenings, with the right reserved to schedule sessions before the meeting if someone is coming in from the outside, and that this be effective for the first meeting in March was unanimously carried. Evaluation of Request for Proposals - Dover Broadcast and Production Equipment (RFP 17-0016CC) For many years, Comcast has provided the City of Dover with the recording and distribution of content for City Council meetings. During recent negotiations with Comcast, they indicated that they wanted to move away from providing this service. In May 2016, staff started looking at the needs and requirements to continue the broadcast. In accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy, Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were solicited for RFP#17-0016CC and two (2) vendors submitted proposals. City staff reviewed the submissions and found that Total Video Productions submission met all requirements for the qualifications of the project. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Total Video Products for the City of Dover Broadcast and Production Equipment RFP#17-0016CC, in the amount of $155,349 (to include the project build out and annual support, maintenance and training in the amount of $151,849 and $3,500 respectively), and authorizing the upgrade contract to TelVue, as a sole source provider in the continuation of existing broadcasting services and expansion to streaming services for the amount

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 21 of $8,740 which includes a credit for existing legacy equipment and prepayment options to reduce any future annual costs. The total of both actions is $164,089.50. Mr. Neil noted that, during “Discussion - Use of Levy Court Chambers” earlier in the meeting, the Committee recommended directing Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, to work with staff to create rough order magnitude estimates to address the ADA and safety issues and that Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, and Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, initiate the dialogue with Mr. Petit de Mange from Kent County to look at the issues of temporary space for a defined period of time for City Council meetings. Mr. Neil moved to table this item until staff reports back. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. After hearing concerns regarding tabling, Mr. Neil and Mr. Sudler withdrew their motion and second. Mrs. Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator, and Mr. Mark Kennedy former Comcast employee and consultant to the City on the project, reviewed a presentation entitled “Evaluation of Request for Proposal - Dover Broadcast & Production Equipment” (Attachment #2). Mrs. Sass advised that staff began negotiating the Comcast Franchise Agreement with Mr. Chris Comer, Director of Government Affairs for the Beltway region from Comcast, who eluded to the fact that independent filming and production of municipal meetings was no longer being provided due to their staff time and the fact that technology had changed so drastically that equipment for that purpose was aged. She noted that the wiring and infrastructure for City Hall dated to 1973. Mrs. Sass noted that the Verizon agreement of January 2008 included an EG or education and government channel, as well as a grant in the amount of $200,000 strictly for the EG channel. She noted that very little of those funds have been used over the past nine (9) years and the current balance and reserves is approximately $170,124. Mrs. Sass noted they she and Mr. Kennedy worked with the City Clerk’s Office regarding the requirements to make the system compatible with existing equipment to continue the transparency legacy for City Council. She also advised that they worked with Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, and the Procurement Office for guidance on the RFP process. Mr. Kennedy provided an overview of the technical aspect of the project that would enable continued broadcasting over Comcast and Verizon. He stated that they also wanted to ensure that the services were expanded to include live streaming, which is not currently provided. Mr. Kennedy noted that video recordings of the meetings were previously provided on demand through a YouTube channel on the web. Mr. Kennedy noted that the City’s current equipment is good; however, it is aging and hard to modularize and add components for expanding later on. He advised that he has proposed mounted cameras and new microphones inside the Council Chambers, a viewing monitor in the vestibule for meeting overflow, and presentation monitors for the Caucus and Conference rooms. Mr. Kennedy stated that a media control room would be installed to replace the Comcast media truck. He advised that the control room would be operational with only one person controlling the equipment.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 22 Mr. Kennedy stated that, in order to continue to broadcast over Verizon and add streaming services, they looked at several vendors and suppliers and determined that the City’s current provider, TelVue Systems, offers a cloud-based solution which would eliminate the need for hardware that expires over time and the costs associated with replacing it. Mr. Kennedy also noted that the cloud-based solution would afford better services by allowing people to view the proceedings from their mobile devices, tablets, and computers. He stated that TelVue also provides a bulletin board service, which would give constituents the ability to see all of the on goings of the City and any announcements. Mr. Kennedy explained that TelVue would continue to provide scheduled rebroadcasts of recorded meetings, in addition to the streaming services. He reminded members that TelVue is a sole source provider and there was no need to look into what other companies would do because they found that TelVue supplied all the needs that the City was looking for. Mr. Kennedy, referring to the Broadcast System Overview on page 6 of the presentation entitled “Evaluation of Request for Proposal - Dover Broadcast & Production Equipment,” explained what the broadcast system would entail. He advised that the four mounted cameras for the Council Chambers, as well as the microphones and any computer units would devolve into the control room, which would have a controller. The operator would control all the cameras and take the audio feed in and create a production mix that would be broadcast, and also feed the vestibule and conference room monitors. Mr. Kennedy noted that the system would have a recorder and it would also send a signal to the TelVue provider, which would then send that signal out through the City’s Verizon and Comcast channels, as well as the streaming components. Mr. Kennedy advised that two (2) vendors responded to the RFP, both proposals were reviewed and, in his opinion, Total Video Products provided the best solution. He stated that both of the designs were very similar and in some cases they were almost identical; however, he explained that there was a total price difference of approximately $40,000. Mr. Kennedy stated that he thought that Visual Sound gave a good effort in their design for the system but that their prices were way out of line in terms of the industry standards. Referring to the Breakdown of Costs on page 7 of the presentation entitled “Evaluation of Request for Proposal - Dover Broadcast & Production Equipment,” he noted that there was an approximate difference of $20,000 for Installation Services, and an approximate difference of $13,000 for Equipment. Mr. Kennedy advised members that he recommended Total Video Products for this particular RFP. Mrs. Sass explained that staff recommended the lower cost vendor, who had a proposal amount of $151,849, as well as the TelVue upgrade that is needed. She stated that staff had been experiencing a lot of issues with the aging equipment that the City had been using with TelVue and they were able to get some compensation from TelVue for the current hardware in order to upgrade to the cloud. Mrs. Sass noted that upgrading to the cloud would remove the hardware from the City’s property, which was also advantageous for the City. Mrs. Sass informed members that staff is finishing negotiations with Comcast for the franchise agreement and, to avoid jeopardizing what the City has already agreed upon with Verizon or with Comcast, she could not discuss the details until it is finalized. However, she noted that there is an opportunity for additional funding to take place from Comcast.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 23 Mrs. Sass indicated that many people had been asking how they would be able to watch Council meetings. She stated that the recommended proposal would allow the City to live stream the meetings, which is an outstanding feature that had never been offered before. Mrs. Sass advised members that the City would own the equipment and could utilize staff or whomever to do the recordings; therefore, they would be able to broadcast the Council Committee of the Whole or other committee, commission, and board meetings. With regard to who will run the equipment for the City, she stated that one of the requirements given to Mr. Kennedy was for staff to be able to be trained to operate the equipment and there was a multitude of different options. She noted that the system is very user friendly and staff would be trained to run the equipment and the former Comcast contractors had offered to come back to run it as well. She indicated that another option would be to utilize local talent from area schools, potentially at no cost. Mrs. Sass advised that Dover High School offers a communications class, Delaware State University offers a degree in Mass Communications and Radio, Television, and Film Production, Wesley College offers a degree in Multimedia Communications, and Delaware Technical and Community College offers a degree program in Communications, noting that it may be a great way for the City to really increase working with the community. Mrs. Sass informed members that, upon Council approval, the entire project, including training, could be completed and the City could be back on the air, streaming video to constituents in approximately 60 days. Mrs. Sass noted that the presentation included a revised recommended action from what was included in the Committee Action Form, explaining that the amounts were the same; however, they were spelled out more clearly. Mr. Neil stated that the motion he made to table the matter, which he subsequently withdrew, had nothing to do with the proposal, explaining that he thought it was terrific. He indicated that his motion to table the matter had to do with the fact that members were juggling a number of different items, including the possibility of moving to the Levy Court, as well as what members had asked of staff earlier in the meeting in terms of making the Council Chambers accessible. Mr. Neil asked if there would be any cost to the City if the Committee tabled this matter and delayed the response until they have answers. Mrs. Sass advised that according to the City’s RFP process, they had 120 days from the day to close so they would have to have Council’s approval by March 27, 2017. Mrs. Mitchell advised that it would depend on how the bid document was written and the terms of the contract, noting that it was possible that it would have to be rebid after 120 days. Mr. Anderson pointed out that there was a consensus that if meetings were moved during construction time, this would only be temporary; therefore, it would not really affect whether or not the City gets new equipment. He stated that it seemed that this would be a good use of the grants, which would cover it 100%, noting that more would probably be available for any adjustments that become necessary. Mr. Anderson stated that Kent Polytech has a fine program that is looking for things to do and does a high-quality job for very low cost.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 24 Mr. Anderson questioned how easily the equipment could be adjusted or moved around if renovations were made in the chamber, such as raising the floor. Responding, Mr. Kennedy stated that the area that would be impacted would be the running of the lines, noting that changes to anything like the floor, ceilings, or walls would definitely impact whether or not the project can move forward. Mrs. Sass stated that it was mentioned during the site visit that the cost to run the lines would be higher because of how they have to run them under the floor. She suggested that if they elevate the floor there could be a potential cost savings and it would be easier than going under the floor. Mr. Anderson asked if they would have scheduling flexibility with the vendor once the project is awarded. Mrs. Sass advised that they would build the project timeline after the contract is signed and that they would talk to the vendor about flexibility. Mr. Slavin asked if the broadcasting would include closed captioning, which is a component of ADA. Responding, Mrs. Sass and Mr. Kennedy stated that closed captioning would be provided through TelVue at an additional cost. Mr. Slavin asked what the lifespan and replacement cycle was for the equipment being purchased. Mr. Kennedy advised that the hardware components, such as the speakers and amplifiers, could be expected to have ten years of use, especially with the maintenance agreement that is included in the contract. He noted that they will come in on a regular basis and troubleshoot any problems and work with manufacturers and vendors to expedite repairs when necessary. Mr. Kennedy noted that maintenance is an important component that really expands the life of the equipment. Mr. Slavin asked what the lifespan was for the cameras. Mr. Kennedy stated that the Comcast cameras had a long life and the cameras in the bid specifications were Sony’s. Mr. Slavin asked what the “all in” number was for the project because $150,000 gets them the equipment but in ten years they will more than double that in maintenance and operations cost. Responding, Mrs. Sass stated that the future annual cost would be approximately $8,900. Mr. Slavin noted that $8,900 times 10 years would be $89,000 and expressed the need to talk about staffing. He stated that he appreciated the desire to accomplish this with as much free help as possible, which was a wonderful opportunity; however, he noted that someone had to be there to manage the free help. Mrs. Sass explained that this was one of the biggest components of the system. She stated that staff had advised Mr. Kennedy that staff would have to be able to operate the system and the specifications were developed for the type of person who does not do this on a daily basis. Mr. Slavin questioned which staff member does not have enough work now and could take on video production. Responding, Mrs. Sass explained that this would be done at night during the meetings, just as it is now. Mr. Slavin stated that the City would have to get into and staff this line of business, and there is a reliability factor that he was trying to flush out. Mrs. Sass indicated that this would not be done outside the meeting timeframe and would be done as it is now, except the physical component of a truck would be removed and the equipment would be placed in a closet. She stated that the amount of staff would be reduced. Mr. Slavin advised that someone would be a controller who operates the camera and makes sure that everything is working right. Mrs. Sass advised that

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 25 staff would be trained. She stated that Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, and Ms. Denise Devine, Assistant City Clerk attend the meetings and would not be running the equipment but noted that there was additional staff in the City Clerk’s Office. Mr. Slavin stated that there would be a need to figure out who the staff would be, and there would be some soft cost for staff time, etc. Mrs. Sass advised that there were current savings on operations because Comcast had been budgeted for but was no longer being paid. In response to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Sass indicated that Comcast was being paid $300 for one (1) employee and $100 for each of the three (3) other employees, for a total of $600 per meeting. Mr. Slavin asked how many years they had paid Comcast. Responding, Mrs. Sass stated that the production had been included in their agreement until Comcast decided to discontinue it, which was when staff started this process. Mr. Slavin asked if the City received some offset from Comcast, noting that they had walked away from that cost. Responding, Mrs. Sass indicated there was absolutely some offset, which was part of a franchise agreement that had not yet been signed. She explained that until it was signed, she did not want to negate what was already negotiated. Mr. Slavin commented that the funding to date, and over the last nine (9) years, was a balance of approximately $170,000. Mrs. Sass advised that the funding for EG Programming was received during the first two (2) years of the nine-year time frame. She indicated that these funds had been held for approximately eight (8) or nine (9) years since staff knew this would eventually be a large project that could be covered by the grant. Mr. Slavin asked if there was a way for this funding to replenish itself. Responding, Mrs. Sass advised that the Verizon franchise agreement is done every 10 years, and this was a part of the first franchise agreement. She noted that anything negotiated at that time would be included in the agreement. Mr. Slavin stated that sometimes when he hears talk about grant money, it is almost like it is not the public’s money but free money, that whatever is wanted can be done with it, and that none of the rules apply. Mr. Slavin advised that he takes a different approach and that their roles as financial stewards do not end simply because the money comes from a non-taxpayer source. He indicated that once the money is ported through the City of Dover and goes into its accounts, the City is responsible for it. Mr. Slavin stated that grants should always be looked at in terms of what out-year costs are associated with the “free money” that comes in. He stated that he had seen instances a number of times, at the City and other places, where there is a free employee who is paid for by the federal government for two (2) years, but the grant agreement is that they are maintained for three (3) years after their funding ends, which is not worth it in some cases. Responding, Mrs. Sass agreed and stated that she thought the City had been good stewards of the grant money, which had been sitting for eight (8) or nine (9) years. She noted that staff knew this situation was coming, it was just a matter of when it would come, and the time presented itself when Mr. Ron Dagley of Comcast opted to retire. Mr. Slavin stated that, as Mr. Neil had alluded, one decision would beget a whole bunch of other decisions.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 26 Mr. Hosfelt stated that he felt that this was something that members needed to do; however, he agreed with some members of Council that it was best to wait to get an estimate on what would be done with the Council Chambers. He indicated that he did not want to wait too long, noting that members could keep putting this off. Mr. Hosfelt thought it was something that constituents would want and stated that it was something that his constituents would like to see. He stated that more people watch the meetings than members realize, and he liked the fact that the Council Committee of the Whole meetings could also be televised, which he thought was important because that is where some of the best discussions are held and it would benefit the community and constituents City-wide to hear those conversations. He indicated that he was in favor of the proposal and appreciated the work and research that went into it but noted it would be sensible to be patient for a couple of months until it is determined how Council Chambers will be redone. Mr. Hare stated that he thought the decision to accept the proposal should be made before the time runs out and the timeline for installing the equipment could be made at another time so that the project would not have to be rebid. Mr. Slavin noted that the estimates being requested were only staff-level estimates at this point. Mr. Neil moved to table this matter until the second meeting in February to hear from the staff working with the Levy Court in terms of what they discover and recommend. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin. Mr. Lewis asked what the stipulations of the grant were in regard to time constraints. He explained that usually when a grant is offered, if it is not accepted the grant will go away. Responding, Mrs. Sass explained that the stipulations were not with the grant. In response to Mr. Slavin’s request for clarification regarding whether or not this was a grant, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the money was received from the Verizon franchise when the City first did FIOS and Verizon in Dover approximately 10 years ago. The grant was for $50,000 over four (4) years, for a total of $200,000. Mrs. Mitchell stated that it is the City’s money and it was given to the City with the intention to build its EG channel. In response to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that the funds could only be used for that purpose. Mr. Anderson stated his recollection that the franchise for Verizon would expire in about a year. Responding, Mrs. Sass stated that it would expire in January 2018. Mr. Anderson asked if the money would remain in the account or if it would go away. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the funds were in a reserve and would remain there as long as they were used for that purpose. Mrs. Mitchell noted that some funds had been used for monitors and similar equipment. In response to Mr. Lewis regarding the time frame, Mrs. Sass explained that there is no time frame on the grant, which is listed as a Verizon EG grant; however, franchise renegotiations would be signed some time next year. If members wanted to entertain additional grant funding from Verizon, she did not believe it would be acting in good faith to say that the City has $170,000 of funding remaining and still expect them to give more.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 27 Mr. Slavin stated that, in his opinion, considering what Verizon was getting in the franchise agreement and how much profit they were making in Dover, the City could go in with a strong position with regard to how much money it has in the bank. Mr. Sudler expressed thanks for the presentation and the hard work that went into it. The motion to table this matter until the second meeting in February to hear from the staff working with the Levy Court in terms of what they discover and recommend was unanimously carried. Permission to Recruit - Full-Time Budget Analyst Since September 2011, a majority of the responsibility for preparing the City's Annual Budget has been shifted to various staff members in the Finance Department. The decision to transfer the budget preparation function to the Finance Department, upon the retirement of the former Senior City Administrator, which was located in the City Manager's Office, made it unnecessary to hire additional staff in the City Manager’s Office for budget purposes, reduced duplication of efforts, and centralized the overall budget process. Mr Koenig noted that the budget transfer was memorialized in the Council meeting minutes of March 25, 2013 (Attachment #3). Mr. Koenig advised that the FY 2016 budget included a part-time position in the Finance Department which was intended to assist with the budget duties. This position went unfilled due to the exploration of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) solution. The part-time position was also included in the FY 2017 budget; however, it was removed from the draft budget prior to being presented to Council in order to comply with the request that they stay within the current tax rate for FY 2017. Mr. Koenig advised that, after five (5) years, the Controller/Treasurer desires to transfer a bulk of the duties associated with the budget back to the City Manager's Office. The City Manager agrees with this change; however, he requested the addition of a Budget Analyst to prepare, develop, compile, and administer the annual operating and multi-year capital budgets. Other duties would include regular monitoring of the budget throughout the fiscal year, monitoring various purchasing activities, completing special projects, and supporting the City's strategic planning efforts. The Finance Department will continue to serve a critical role in the budget for such matters as payroll budgeting. Mr. Koenig reviewed the job description developed by the Human Resources Director, Mrs. Kim Hawkins, and noted that the position was been assigned a pay grade of 122 (NB). The salary range is $44,619 - $61,635 (start of range to top of middle point). The estimated benefit costs are $25,012 - $29,460 and the total compensation is valued at $69,628 - $91,091. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised that this is an unbudgeted and unfunded position and he estimated that the position could be filled as early as April 2017. He noted that a maximum of three (3) months of salary and benefits, estimated at between $17,407 and $22,773, would be needed for the current fiscal year. Mr. Koenig stated that, if approved, the City Manager would propose to move salary and benefit savings from vacant positions throughout the organization to fund the position in the current fiscal year and then process a budget amendment to move those funds into the City Manager's budget.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 28 Mr. Sudler stated that he thought hiring an Assistant City Manager would have eliminated some of these issues. Mr. Hosfelt stated that he was not sure of the interpretation that Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, was not going to prepare the budget; Mrs. Mitchell was directed by Council that she was not going to do the budget and that it was the responsibility of the City Manager. He stated that was his understanding of this situation and that he did not know how it was conveyed to Mr. Koenig by Mrs. Mitchell. Mr. Koenig advised that it was not conveyed to him by anyone except Mrs. Mitchell and not until late December. Mr. Hosfelt stated that was unfortunate. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Koenig advised that staff members are inputting budgets for FY18 requests and they are doing the best they can to prepare the budget. Mr. Hosfelt asked if, in addition to the Assistant City Manager, Mr. Koenig wanted another person. Mr. Koenig advised that the discussion related to the Assistant City Manager position stemmed from either his 2013 or 2014 evaluation when members of Council expressed concern with the responsiveness to requests being received by the City Manager's office, delayed correspondence, and delayed interactions with people calling in. He noted that the authorization for the Assistant City Manager position did not include responsibilities related to budget preparation because those responsibilities had been formally assigned by City Council to the Finance Department. Mr. Koenig advised that it was not until they started recruiting and were ready to make a selection for the Assistant City Manager position that Mrs. Mitchell indicated that she was interested in transferring the budget responsibilities back to the City Manager's Office. He noted that their discussion was not related to direction from Council, but to the desire of the Finance Department to forego those responsibilities. Mr. Koenig noted that part of the reason for moving the budget to the Finance Department was to consolidate operations because, traditionally, the Finance Department back checked all the numbers associated with the budget development. It was also an effort to work more closely with the Finance Department to eliminate redundant operations and efforts. Mr. Koenig stated that he thought the issue went to the larger context of a discussion that they had a month ago with respect to the true responsibilities of each component of the City government, which he did not have the ability to work out. He thought that transferring the responsibility of the City budget development to the Assistant City Manager was a recipe for disaster because neither that person, nor he, had an accounting background. Mr. Koenig stated that the previous Senior City Administrator, who was located in the City Manager's Office, had a 20 year history with the City with progressively increasing responsibility related to the budget development and all the systems associated with it. Mr. Koenig stated that the budget is a long, complicated, and extensive process. City Council has put a lot of weight and investment in the budget process and he is somewhat frustrated by the fact that those discussions happened and were not conveyed to him, nor was the City Manager asked to weigh in on those discussions. Mr. Koenig advised that the budget is probably the single most important policy document that the City has going forward and, although it is complicated, it does not have to be prepared by a person that is paid six figures. Mr. Koenig stated that the budget can be prepared by an analyst who knows spreadsheets, knows how to pull the budget together, and has the ability to shut their door and work on the budget without interruption. He noted that he does not

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 29 have the ability to focus solely on the budget and; therefore, was asking for the Budget Analyst position. Mr. Koenig advised that the City Manager’s Office was in a terrible position with respect to the budget preparation due to a breakdown of communication. Mr. Hosfelt clarified that the addition of $205,000 for Customer Service positions and at least $69,000 for a budget analyst, for a total of $275,000, was being added to a budget that they had not even started yet and did not know how they were going to fund. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Koenig advised that, as far back as the early 1990s, the Senior City Administrator (previously Customer Services Director) was responsible for preparation of the budget. He noted that there was coordination between the Customer Services Department, the City Manager's Office, and the department heads and the Controller/Treasurer (previously the Finance Director) was involved in departmental budget discussions. Mr. Anderson stated that, as former Council President Hogan pointed out many times, leaving the budget preparation and the audit functions with the Finance Department eliminates the checks and balances that were originally intended. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr, Koenig advised that the audit is done by a third party contractor. He noted that City Council, years ago, made a conscious decision to place the Finance Department under the direction of City Council instead of the City Manager. Mr. Koenig advised that the decisions were are a matter of record. He noted that the budget preparation originally included a part time position in the Finance Department to support the staff members in that department associated with preparing the budget. Mr. Koenig suggested that Mrs. Mitchell testify on staffing. He advised that the budget document is a compilation of a lot of work performed by Mrs. Mitchell and Finance Department staff, including an Administrative Assistant that prepares the final budget for public presentation. Mr. Anderson asked why Mr. Koenig thought that the Budget Analyst needed to be a full-time position in the City Manager’s Office but a part-time position in the Finance Department. Responding, he stated that the Finance Department staff has accounting backgrounds, so it could be more easily absorbed as a part-time position. Responding to Dr. Stewart, Mr. Koenig stated that he was not anticipating inclusion of the part-time person in the budget for the next year. Dr. Stewart advised that, instead of creating a new position, the State evaluates vacant positions for reclassification. She asked if Mr. Koenig had evaluated vacant positions throughout the City for reclassification. Mr. Koenig advised that he had not. Responding to Mr. Cole, Mr. Koenig advised that he could not think of any vacant administrative positions that were not associated with bargaining units that could be reclassified; however, he advised that he would provide an answer when this issue is considered by Council at their next meeting. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig advised that the job description was ready in November and he was only bringing it forward for consideration now because he would prefer not to ask for a new position in the middle of the budget year; however, he stated that he did not feel as though he had a lot of choices.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 30 Mr. Hare commented that he felt that this was a moot issue for the current budget year due to the length of time that it takes to hire people in the City, noting that it would take approximately two (2) or three (3) months before someone is hired. He suggested that the position be considered in the next budget. Mrs. Mitchell advised that she and Mr. Koenig have had discussions about transferring the budget back to the City Manager and reminded members that she sent a memo in November 2015 to Mr. Koenig and copied City Council members requesting that the budget be transferred back to the City Manager's Office. Mrs. Mitchell stated that Mr. Koenig discussed the Budget Analyst position and whether it should be a full-time or part-time position with City Council the previous July. She noted that she had a conversation with Mr. Koenig about moving forward with hiring the Budget Analyst quickly so that they could be trained. Mrs. Mitchell advised that there was an e-mail exchange between she and Mrs. Kim Hawkins, Human Resources Director, dated August 3, 2016, regarding the necessary skill set for a Budget Analyst and they were just now discussing it. Mr. Anderson asked if Mrs. Mitchell believed that the Budget Analyst position was necessary for the efficient compilation of the budget. Responding, she stated that she supported the Assistant City Manager's position because she was under the impression that they were going to be preparing the budget. Mrs. Mitchell noted that it was not until after she talked to Mr. Koenig after he was ready to hire an Assistant City Manager that he indicated that Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, was not being hired to prepare the budget. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she thought the e-mail from Mrs. Hawkins requesting information was a result of the conversation that she had with Mr. Koenig about quickly bringing the request for a Budget Analyst forward to City Council Mr. Sudler noted that he sensed a breakdown in communication between Mrs. Mitchell and Mr. Koenig and that the departments may not be working well together. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation for authorization to begin the recruitment process for the position of Budget Analyst in the City Manager's office. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil. Mr. Neil stated that although he thought the position request should have been presented earlier so that person could be on board to prepare the budget, they needed to make sure that they have a budget that they can live with. Mr. Hosfelt stated that he did not see the need for, and would not at this time support, the addition of a Budget Analyst. He noted that the budget has been done without one for at least two (2) years. Mr. Anderson stated that he agreed that the position would not be filled until the following year. Mr. Hare advised that he would not be able to support a full-time position. The motion to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation for authorization to begin the recruitment process for the position of Budget Analyst in the City Manager's office failed with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Neil voting yes.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017 PAGE 31 Mr. Slavin congratulated Dr. Courtney Stewart on being named Deputy Secretary of State for the State of Delaware. Dr. Stewart moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. By unanimous consent, the Council Committee of the Whole meeting was adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Timothy A. Slavin Council President TAS/TM/js/dd/dk/tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2017\01-24-2017 CCW Minutes (Revised to correct date of memorandum referenced by DM to November 2015 ).wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Proposed Resolution No. 2017-01 Proposing the Complete Streets Policy Attachment #2 - Presentation entitled “Evaluation of Request for Proposal - Dover Broadcast & Production Equipment” Attachment #3 - Council Meeting Minutes of March 25, 2013

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 01/24/2017 City of Dover MAYOR AND COUNCIL 1 PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2017-01 2 A RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE COMPLETE STREETS POLICY 3 WHEREAS, Complete Streets are designed and operated to assure safety and accessibility for all 4 the users of the public right-of-way, and to reduce congestion by providing safe travel choices that encourage 5 non-motorized transportation and transit; and 6 WHEREAS, Complete Streets policies acknowledge the benefits and value for the public health and 7 welfare of reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing transportation by walking, bicycling, and public 8 transportation; 9 WHEREAS, Complete Streets support economic growth and community stability by providing 10 accessible and efficient connections between home, school, work, recreation and retail destinations by 11 improving the pedestrian and vehicular environments throughout communities; and 12 WHEREAS, Complete Streets enhance safe walking and bicycling options for school-age children, 13 furthering the objectives of the national Safe Routes to School programs and the Centers for Disease Control 14 and Prevention’s Physical Activity Guideline; and 15 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has worked with the Delaware Department of Transportation and 16 the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization to plan for and construct bicycle and pedestrian 17 improvements both within road rights-of-ways and through parks, to help develop an interconnected network 18 for pedestrians and cyclists; and 19 WHEREAS, the City of Dover annually directs resources to improving the sidewalk system through 20 the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, and through provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision 21 Regulations, and development review process requires sidewalks, landscaping, and other site design features 22 to provide for safe amenities for bicyclists and pedestrians; and 23 WHEREAS, the City of Dover coordinates closely with the Department of Transportation as the 24 State’s Complete Streets policy is applied to projects within the City of Dover; and 25 WHEREAS, the implementation of code requirements, maintenance of sidewalks, and coordination 26 with the Department of Transportation result in a policy of Complete Streets in the City of Dover; P.O. Box 475 ˜ Dover, Delaware ˜19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

DRAFT PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2017-01 PAGE 2 27 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover, that The 28 City of Dover is committed to implementing the code requirements and policies to ensure a network of 29 Complete Streets in Dover that achieves principles of connectivity; fosters walkable, bikable, and transit- 30 friendly communities; and reduces automobile dependency. 31 ADOPTED: * 32 S:\RESOLUTIONS-PROCLAMATIONS-TRIBUTES\2017\DRAFT\RESOLUTION NO. 2017-01 - PROPOSING THE COMPLETE STREETS POLICY\Resolution No. 2017-01 - Complete Streets 33 Policy-Council.wpd 34 35 ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN TIMOTHY A. SLAVIN 36 MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT 37 Actions History 38 02/13/2017 - Scheduled for Consideration - City Council 39 01/24/2017 - Introduced - Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee P.O. Box 475 ˜ Dover, Delaware ˜19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 01/24/2017 Evaluation of Request for Proposal – Dover Broadcast & Production Equipment RFP# 17-0016CC

Process – How we started For many years Comcast has done an outstanding job providing the recording of the Council meetings to our community. We were informed they no longer had the desire to provide this service so in May of 2016 we started the process. Grant from Verizon Franchise Agreement to be used for the EG Channel (Education and Government) Received $200,000 GRANT over the course of the past 9 years Conditions of grant: Can only be used for EG programming

RFP Process Worked through Procurement Office and Finance Posted November 3rd – closed on the November 28, 2016 Held a mandatory preapproval meeting for Q & A on November 14, 2016 Reviewed proposals on December 6, 2016

What does the proposal include?  4 Mounted Remote Operated cameras inside Council Chambers  New Microphones & Speakers in Chambers, Large Conference Room and Caucus Room  Large viewing monitor (50 inches) for the vestibule/lobby outside of Council Chambers for any overflow from the Council Chambers  Presentation Monitor for Caucus Room  Three new Presentation Monitors for Large Conference Room (replace aging projector)  Media “ Control Room” - converting the closet in the City Hall Conference Room to house the equipment in order to record and broadcast onto our EG Channel

TelVue System Upgrade Current provider for system we utilize for bulletin board and Live broadcast programming of the city council meetings. (Verizon Feed) Provide live and on-demand streaming for web and mobile Provide scheduled rebroadcasts of live recordings Sole Source Provider Cost is $8,740.50

Broadcast System Overview

Breakdown of Costs Visual Sound Total Video Products Equipment $123,308 $110,868 Installation Services $63,968 $41,070 Installation $8,518 $4,856 Materials Warranty, Freight $0 – N.B.O $3,752 – 5 year etc warranty Total $195,794 ($204,351 $151,849 listed in RFP)

Total The total cost of the Project is $164,089.00  Total Video Products - Project Build - $151,849.00  Total Video Products - Annual 24/7 Support, Maintenance and Training – $3,500.00 (1st of Five Years)  TelVue - Upgrade and First Year of Service - $8740.50 Current balance on the reserve account for the grant is approximately $170,124.54 Cost to taxpayer? $0.00 Future Annual Costs $8,900.00  Total Video Products - $3,500.00  TelVue - $5,400.00

How will I see my City Council meeting? If you are a Verizon subscriber you will continue to watch it on channel 20 Comcast channel to be announced as we are still working through our franchise agreement Online at www.cityofdover.com as a live stream and as a stored video to watch at your leisure

Timeline In approximately sixty (60) days the entire project can be completed throughout City Hall training time is included in this Priority is the Council Chambers to get the meetings back on air We will meet with Total Video Products to create a more detailed timeline upon confirmation of contract

Recommended Action  Staff recommends awarding the contract to Total Video Products for the City of Dover Broadcast and Production Equipment RFP#17-0016CC, in the amount of $155,349 (to include the project build out and annual support, maintenance and training in the amount of $151,849 and $3500 respectively) And, authorize the upgrade contract to TelVue, as a sole source provider in the continuation of existing broadcasting services and expansion to streaming services for the amount of $8,740.00 which includes a credit for existing legacy equipment and prepayment options to reduce any future annual costs. The total of both actions is $164,089.50.

Questions?

ATTACHMENT #3 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 01/24/2017 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on March 25, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Leary presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Perza, Mr. Bonar, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Mrs. Williams was absent. Council staff members present were Police Chief Hosfelt, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief West, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Anderson requested that Item #5A - Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - March 11, 2013 - Permanent Assignment of Duties Associated with Interim Managerial Plan and Organizational Changes be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Anderson, Dixon, Lynn, Bonar, Hare, Hutchison, and Leary), one (1) no (Perza), and one (1) absent (Williams). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - MARCH 11, 2013 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on March 11, 2013 with Chairman Lynn presiding. Permanent Assignment of Duties Associated with Interim Managerial Plan and Organizational Changes Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reminded members that in December of 2011, he requested and implemented a number of organizational changes related to several staff vacancies and the changing needs of the City’s organization. He noted that since that time, a number of staff positions had been filled while others had been vacated through resignation or retirement. Mr. Koenig reviewed and requested support of permanent changes to staff assignments, salary and organizational structure, as follows: Public Works Under the original Interim Plan, Ms. Sharon Duca, P.E. was elevated to the position of Interim Public Works Director. Since that time, Ms. Duca has been offered and accepted the position of Public Works Director. One of her tasks has been to review the organizational structure of the reformed Public Works Department. In June 2012, the Public Utilities Operations/Construction Manager resigned from his position. Instead of filling this position, which supervised the City’s construction crew in addition to other duties, the staff members that formerly reported to the position were placed under the supervision of the Water/Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor, Mr. Ralph McDougall. Originally, their assignments were related mostly to general maintenance items. In February 2013, the construction crew aspect of their duties was re-activated to begin construction of a new water line to support the Garrison Farm Development. New projects will continue to be assigned to this crew under the supervision of Mr. McDougall. Since the construction crew was not formerly the responsibility of the Water/Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor, the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 25, 2013 PAGE 2 Director of Public Works had requested a review of the position to ensure internal equity in pay with respect to other positions given the new duties. The Water/Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor position is a Labor Grade 122. Human Resources completed an internal review of this position related to other positions within the Department of Public Works. They also reviewed the salary range with respect to a similar position at Kent County. Based upon this review, staff recommended that the salary for this position be increased from $54,576 to $61,000. This is an increase of $6,424 or 11.77%. The effective date of this salary change should be retroactive to February 1, 2013. Mr. Koenig advised members that currently, there is still one (1) remaining position in the Department of Public Works that is receiving a managerial bonus related to the Interim Plan from December 2011. Due to recent retirements, a formal recommendation will be forthcoming in the next several months regarding this position and others within the department. Information Technology Mr. Koenig advised members that upon his appointment as Interim City Manager, he was informed of the capacity that Mr. Andy Siegel was serving in the Information Technology Department. In August 2010, Mr. Siegel was temporarily upgraded to the position of Interim Information Technology Director by the former City Manager. His salary was placed at the entry level value of $76,314 for the grade of the Director’s position. Earlier this year, Mr. Koenig decided to offer Mr. Siegel the position of Information Technology Director, thus removing the interim label; however, no adjustment to his salary was made. Upon review of the circumstances, he was made aware that he had made no consideration for the roughly 2.5 years that Mr. Siegel served as the Interim Director. If Mr. Siegel had been credited with 2.5 years of experience in the salary offer for the Director’s position, the salary offer would have been $82,059; therefore, he recommended that his salary be increased from $76,314 to $82,059, an increase of $5,745 or 7.53%. He felt that the recommended salary should be retroactive to the date of promotion to the Director’s position. Finance Since becoming the City Manager, Mr. Koenig advised members that a large bulk of the responsibility of preparing the City’s Annual Budget had been shifted to the staff in the Finance Department. This was an effort to reduce duplication of effort and centralize budgeting efforts. With the retirement of the former Senior City Administrator in the City Manager’s office, it would have been necessary to hire additional staff to assist with the budget preparation and management. The transfer of the budget preparation function to the Finance Department has made it unnecessary to hire additional staff in the City Manager’s office. The Controller personally assumed much of the budget functions in prior years and opted to not accept compensation for these additional duties. Instead, the Controller offered a portion of the proposed managerial bonus to the Financial Reporting and Accounting Manager (Labor Grade 125), Mrs. Tracey Lisiecki, in the amount of $175 per month. This was done on a temporary basis and the bonus ceased in October 2012. The Human Resources Director has reviewed the position based on internal equity within the organization. Staff recommended the salary for this position be increased from $68,835.24 to $71,600. This is an increase of $2,764.76 or 4.01%.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 25, 2013 PAGE 3 Planning In 2011 as part of the Interim Plan, the Director of Planning and Community Development, Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, accepted the managerial responsibilities for the following divisions: Life Safety, Building Inspections, and Economic Development. These areas represented ten (10) positions and were in addition to her regular permanent responsibilities for Planning, Community Development and Code Enforcement. A managerial bonus of $350 per month was implemented to compensate Mrs. Townshend for these additional responsibilities. Her current salary ($91,775) plus the monthly managerial bonus ($350) equates to annual compensation of $95,975. In June of 2012, the Dover City Council voted to assign the oversight of the Economic Development Office and its three (3) employees to the Mayor. Also in June of 2012, Mr. Zachary Carter elected to retire from the City. Mr. Carter served as the Director of Parks and Recreation. Upon Mr. Carter’s retirement, the Library function became a direct report to the City Manager. In addition, discussions between the City Manager and Mrs. Townshend resulted in the temporary assignment of managerial oversight for the Parks and Recreation staff to Mrs. Townshend. Mrs. Townshend has been serving as the Department Head for the Parks and Recreation function since July 1, 2012. Mr. Koenig provided a summary of the Parks and Recreation functions. Mr. Koenig advised members that the assignment of these duties to Mrs. Townshend has allowed the City to eliminate the Parks and Recreation Director position from the budget. This amounts to an annual salary savings of roughly $81,000 per year. The City also has realized a saving in benefit load over and above the $81,000 in annual salary. Mrs. Townshend has requested consideration of the following annual salary: Current Salary ($91,775) + Current Managerial Bonus ($4,200) + Parks and Recreation Function ($11,340) = $107,315. Based on a business case review, the salary request of $11,340 to continue the managerial oversight of the Parks and Recreation Division is the lowest cost option. The City cannot hire managerial staff for less than $11,340 in salary. In viewing the current organizational structure of the City, the Parks and Recreation function cannot be easily assigned to another manager and the facts support that the assignment to the Director of Planning and Community Development has been a benefit to the City. Since the Director of Planning and Community Development is a Council-appointed position, the City Council must endorse the transfer of the managerial responsibilities as well as the proposed salary. The total increase from $91,775 to $107,315 is $15,540 or 16.93%. Currently, Mrs. Townshend’s position is the sixth highest paid position in the City. If the request is approved, the position will become the fourth highest paid position in the City. Summary As a follow up to the December 2011 Interim Managerial Plan which saved the City an estimated $215,000 in annual salary, Mr. Koenig requested salary increases for those positions served by specific members of City staff who have taken on additional duties or permanent assignments since the Interim Managerial Plan was placed into action, as follows:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 25, 2013 PAGE 4 Percent Position Current Adjusted Difference Increase Water/Wastewater Supervisor $54,576 $ 61,000 $ 6,424 11.77 Information Technology Director $76,314 $ 82,059 $ 5,745 7.53 Fin. Reporting & Acct. Manager $68,835 $ 71,600 $ 2,765 4.01 Director of Planning & Insp. $91,775 $107,315 $15,340 16.93 Mr. Koenig indicated that the salary increases total $30,274. Total budgetary impact would be salary plus 40% load, which is roughly $42,383.60. Funding for these increases would need to be covered by unused salary in the current year and would need to be budgeted for in FY-2014. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, read the following statement into the record: “Thank you for the opportunity to explain my compensation proposal. The details of the proposal are in the packet, so I will not go over each and every detail, but I would like to highlight and clarify a few items. • Throughout my seven years with the City of Dover, I have been a devoted employee and have always worked hard to make sure that my efforts and those of my staff are in the best interest of the City. This is my home too, and I am firmly committed to making Dover a great place to live and work. • As outlined in the proposal, there have been added responsibilities to my position over the years that I have enthusiastically accepted, including the addition of economic development responsibilities in 2008, and again in 2011; and the management of the City's Municipal Storm Sewer Permit and reversing the City's non-compliance with the permit. • In December 2011, I was officially assigned oversight of Building Inspections, Licensing and Permitting, and Fire Marshal's Office and compensated with a $350/month bonus, total of $4,200 annually. I had been providing oversight for these areas without added compensation since Mr. Koenig was appointed interim City Manager in June 2011. • In July 2012, I gladly accepted oversight of the Recreation Division following Zach Carter's retirement. I indicated that I did not believe it necessary to delay the responsibilities until compensation could be worked out because I was well aware of the City's fiscal challenges, and I wanted to get a sense of what the demands of the new responsibilities would be. • For the last eight months, I have managed the Recreation Division, working closely with staff to evaluate the business operations, to reverse the declining revenues and to improve our programming – as stated at a recent seminar I attended, to make better best. We have had great success.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 25, 2013 PAGE 5 N We have restructured the City's summer camp program so that it will make money instead of lose money – while making the program better for meeting the needs of working families by adding extended day camp. Our prices are still far less than many other camps, but we will make money instead of lose money on the program. N We have improved our outreach with the schools regarding our programming and seen an increase in participation. N We have adjusted our field rental fee schedule. N I have given staff the support needed to try new ideas and see if they work, including offering birthday party packages at the Pitts Center, and improving partnerships with other sports and recreation providers in the region. • All the while, I have continued working with the business community to modernize and simplify our zoning ordinance; continued our tough approach to code enforcement and addressing vacant and dangerous buildings; worked with the Police Department to develop our proposed Safe Communities program; worked with the Capital School District and DelDOT to address safe pedestrian access to the new High School; worked closely with Planning and Inspection staff to ensure that our business operation remains strong and improved it in a number of areas; and taken on many other projects and issues. • The City does not have to hire a Parks and Recreation Director, which is a savings of a minimum of $72,000 per year plus associated benefits. And our Recreation programs are thriving. • For me personally, this has meant more hours put in to get the job done, including many evenings and weekends. • What is the value of this to the City? The savings of eliminating the department head position (nearly $100,000 when benefits are factored in) combined with the business improvements we are implementing. • My request is for $11,340 annual salary for the Recreation function and $4,200 annual salary (my existing bonus amount) for the oversight of Licensing and Permitting, Fire Marshal's Office, and Building Inspection, for total of $15,540. And yes, technically speaking it is a 16.9% salary increase, but if the bonus is factored in, the increase is 11.8% over my current compensation.” Responding to Mr. Shevock, Mr. Koenig stated that the salaries for the vacated positions were eliminated from the FY2013 Budget; therefore, there was no unused salary for the Senior City Administrator or the Parks and Recreation Director. In response to Mr. Hare regarding salary comparisons for the positions, Mr. Koenig stated that the Water/Wastewater Supervisor position was compared to the City of Dover Water Production Supervisor, who is paid slightly higher but the technical requirements differ. He indicated that Kent

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 25, 2013 PAGE 6 County salary ranges were reviewed and were similar to the salary increases that staff recommended. In regard to the IT Director position, he explained that when the employee was assigned to the Interim IT Director position, he was paid the minimum amount; however, if the City had actually recruited to fill the IT Director’s position and the employee had been selected within the four (4) to six (6) months, the salary would have been appropriate. He explained that there was a 2½ year lapse between the time the employee began serving as the Interim IT Director and when he was actually offered the permanent Director’s position. As a result, this employee acquired 2½ years experience serving as a Director that he was not credited for in the salary calculation. He further explained that if a person had been selected from outside the City’s employment to fill the position and that individual had 2½ years of experience serving as an IT Director, the City would credit the individual for this experience as a Director in developing their salary. Referring to the IT Director, Mr. Hare suggested that the employee be provided a one-time bonus ($5,500-$6,000), noting that his salary was considerably less than $76,000 2½ years ago, and he questioned if his salary would have been set at the higher level if this individual had been selected at that time. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that in every other instance when an employee is promoted, their years of experience are considered and salaries are offered accordingly. In the case of the IT Director, this did not occur and the recommendation would correct this error. The Committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation for the permanent assignment of duties as outlined by the City Manager. During the Council meeting, Mr. Hare reiterated his feeling that action regarding this matter should be deferred until the City’s budget was approved and that any increase in compensation should be accomplished through some form of a bonus system until that time. Mr. Lynn moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson indicated that he concurred with Mr. Hare and, therefore, would not support the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Bonar advised members of his concurrence in this regard as well. The motion to approve the Committee’s recommendation for the permanent assignment of duties as outlined by the City Manager failed by a roll call vote of five (5) no (Anderson, Dixon, Perza, Bonar, and Hare), three (3) yes (Lynn, Hutchison, and Leary), and one (1) absent (Williams). Mr. Lynn suggested that the recommendations of the City Manager be considered individually. Mr. Anderson moved to reconsider the recommendations of the City Manager individually, seconded by Mr. Perza and carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes (Anderson, Lynn, Perza, Hutchison, and Leary), three (3) no (Dixon, Bonar, and Hare), and one (1) absent (Williams). In response to Mr. Perza, Mr. Koenig stated that of the four (4) positions identified in the recommendation, only (1) was currently receiving a bonus. He stated that, under the proposal, all four (4) salaries would be adjusted and there would be no more bonus payments. He explained that

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 25, 2013 PAGE 7 the only bonus paid was to the Planning Director, as a result of her taking on an additional division on December 11, 2012. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig explained that the proposal was being recommended since it had been demonstrated that the total amount of funding for salaries that would be cut from the budget for these positions would exceed $300,000, plus the overhead load. In addition, it was his feeling that this proposal would resolve a fairness and equity issue that he would prefer to resolve now rather than later during the budget consideration. Responding to Council President Leary, Mr. Koenig confirmed that 345 full-time employees were proposed for the next fiscal year, compared to an estimated 370 five (5) years ago. He indicated that this recommendation would reduce the employee head count as well as salary and benefit costs. Council President Leary reminded members that one (1) of the positions was formerly occupied by an individual who retired at a salary level of approximately $80,000 plus benefits, and that the individual who assumed those duties had realigned contracts, found internal cost savings, and would be provided an increase of approximately $1,000 per month. Council President Leary noted that the savings from contract re-negotiations and the Human Resources issues more than exceeded the proposed increase in salary over a one (1) year period. As a result, he felt that if the proposal were approved, the City would be ahead $80,000. Concurring, Mr. Lynn stated that his support was not offered in an effort to rush to spend money but rather to realize a bargain. He also noted that, as mentioned in the material provided, there were some exemplary issues of employee selflessness. As an example, he stated that there were instances of department heads being given an opportunity for extra earnings and declining in order to protect other employees, and others who had assumed additional department head responsibilities. He reiterated that there was an equity and fairness issue and cautioned members that the City could not afford to lose talent, which had recently occurred in the Electric Department. Mr. Perza explained that the City sets salaries based on what the City can afford to pay and if an employee were to leave the City’s employment, several individuals would be in line to fill the position. Although it was not the City’s desire to lose an employee and this would not be the intent if salary increases were not provided, he stated that the City must live within the financial reality of the current economy. After further discussions with the City Manager, he agreed that it would be beneficial for the City to approve staff’s recommendation since it would save the City additional funds in the near future, explaining his preference would be to consolidate the positions rather than hire additional people at this time. Mr. Perza moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, rather than voting on each recommendation individually, as a result of the additional information provided by the City Manager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bonar and carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes (Lynn, Perza, Bonar, Hutchison, and Leary), three (3) no (Anderson, Dixon, and Hare), and one (1) absent (Williams).