Dokiman ki tache

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AGENDA June 22, 2009 - 6:00 P.M. - Council Chambers - City Hall - City of Dover Public comments are welcomed on any item and will be permitted at appropriate times. When possible, please notify the City Clerk (736-7008 or e-mail at Tmcdowell@dover.de.us) should you wish to be recognized. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. Review and Recommendation - Filling of Critical Positions 2. Proposed Ordinance No. 2009-05 - Chapter 102 - Taxation (Tabled by Committee on April 27, 2009) 3. Phase II of the MAG Study (Deferred by Committee on May 26, 2009) A. MAG Recommendations B. Employee Recommendations 4. Adjournment by 7:00 P.M. /tm S:\ClerksOffice\PACKETS\2009\Committee\LF&A\06-22-2009\06-22-2009 LF&A.wpd THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

LAW OFFICES HAROLO SCHMITT INGER NICHOLAS H. RODRIGUEZ SCHMITTINGER AND RODRIGUEZ, P.A. 1928 - 2008 JOHN J. SCHMITnNG~R DOUGLAS B. CATTS 414 SOUTH STATE STREET NEWARK OFFlCE CHRISTIANA EXECUTIVE CAMPUS WILLIAM D. FLETCHER, JR. POST OFFICE Box 497 CRAIG T. EUAS!;£N 220 CONTlNENTAL DRIVE, STE 203 WILLIAM W. PEPPER SR. DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 NE.WAr~K, DELAWAHE 19713 CRYSTAL L. CAtlEY" TELEPHONE302-674-0140 TELEPHONE 302-894-1960 SCOTT E. CHAMBE.R5" FAX 302-894-1965 FRED A. TOWNSEND III FAX 302-674-1830 NOEL E. PRIMOS REHOBOTH BEACH OFFICE DAVID A. 80S\'VELL WACHOVIA BANK 8U1L.OING WALT F. SCHMITTING~R 18489 COASTAL HIGHWAY,2ND FLR R. SCOTT KAPPES REHOBOTHBEACH, DELAWARE 19971 JEFFREY J. CLARK TELEPHONE 302-227-1400 KYLE KEMMER FAX 302-645-1843 KATHRYN J. GARRISON ERIN K. FITZGERALD MIDDLETOWN OFFICE KRIST! N. VITOLA 651 N. BROAD STHEET, STE 104 B. BRIAN BRITTINGFIAM MIDDLETOWN,DELAWARE 19709 TELEPHONE 302-378-1697 -ALSO ADMITTED aN MARYLAND FAX 302-378-1659 June 3, 2009 Cheryl Russell, City Assessor City of Dover P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Dear Cheryl: I reviewed the amended proposed ordinances for Chapter 102 on taxation and they appear to me to be in good order. Specifically, I reviewed the audit procedure by the City Assessor set forth in Sections 102-77(1) and (4) and they are in accordance with our discussion. Also, Sections 102-185 (2) and (3), including the synopsis, are accurate, in my opinion, and will serve the purpose intended. Very truly yours, Il 4v/ RODRIGUEZ NHR : pm1,"l cc: Traci McDowell, City Clerk

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Assessor’s Office DATE SUBMITTED: 06/22/2009 PREPARED BY: Cheryl Russell, Assessor SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Amendments – Chapter 102 – Taxation REFERENCE: IAAO Audit RELATED PROJECT: IAAO Audit APPROVALS: Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and City Council EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance Amendments and Recommendations by the IAAO EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A TIMETABLE: Effective upon adoption by Council RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments to Chapter 102 - Taxation. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS In June 2008, the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) performed an audit of the City of Dover Assessor’s Office. Staff has prepared proposed amendments to the City of Dover Code that will implement the recommendations of the IAAO, the Tax Appeals Committee, and the City Assessor. Section 102-5 (Income and expense reports) This amendment to the Ordinance is a new section to allow the Assessor to require that all commercial/industrial income producing property, within the city limits of Dover, complete and file annual reports of Income and Expenses on forms developed by the Assessor. Failure to provide the Assessor with an Income and Expense report will result in a fine of $100.00. Income and Expense reports will be mailed to property owners and due within thirty (30) days of receipt of request by the Assessor. This information is invaluable in developing the value for these income producing properties. The Income Approach to Valuation is the most common methodology to value these types of property. Section 102-77 (Duties of city assessor) This amendment to the Ordinance is to update the language used for affixing the stamp to the deeds when they are brought into the Assessor’s Office. In addition, the ordinance clarifies a time period for audits of the Transfer Tax. Section 102-185 (Appeals) This amendment to the Ordinance is a new section to explain due dates that were established for the Appeals Committee and approved by Council on November 13, 2007. This ordinance also explains that the right to appeal is lost if they miss any designated appeal date; however, the appellant may appeal the following April for next billing cycle and that appeals/refunds, for errors or opinions of value from appellants, will not be heard of for prior years. This has been the common practice in the Assessor’s Office.

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2009-05 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Chapter 102 – Taxation, Article I - In General, be amended by adding a new Section 5 - Income 4 and expense reports, to read as follows: 5 Section 102-5. Income and expense reports. 6 7 The Assessor shall require that all commercial/industrial income producing property, within the city 8 limits of Dover, complete and file annual reports of Income and Expenses on forms developed by the 9 Assessor. Failure to provide the Assessor with an Income and Expense Report will result in a $100.00 10 fine. Income and Expense reports will be mailed to property owners and due within thirty (30) days of 11 receipt of request by the Assessor. 12 Recommendation by the IAAO in June 2008 - Assessment Change #10 13 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED 14 That Chapter 102 – Taxation, Article III - Realty Transfer Tax, Section 102-77 - Duties of city assessor, 15 be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue, italics, as follows: 16 Section 102-77. Duties of city assessor. 17 In addition to the other duties of the city assessor: 18 (1) Stamps. The city assessor shall prepare and furnish adhesive stamps of such denominations 19 and in such quantities as may be necessary for the payment of the tax imposed by this article and 20 shall make provisions for the sale of such stamps in such places as may be deemed necessary 21 and indicate on the document the amount of transfer tax that has been paid. 22 23 (2) Other evidence of payment. The city assessor may, by regulations, provide for the evidence 24 of the payment of the tax to be shown on the document by means other than the affixing of 25 documentary stamps. 26 (3) Regulations. The city assessor is charged with the enforcement of this article and is 27 authorized and empowered to prescribe, adopt, promulgate, and enforce regulations relating to: 28 a. The method to be used in affixing or cancelling of stamps in substitution for or in 29 addition to the method and means provided in this article. 30 b. The denomination and sale of stamps. 31 c. Any other matter or thing pertaining to the administration and enforcement of this 32 article.

Proposed Ordinance #2009-05 In Full Context Page 2 33 (4) Audit. The city assessor is charged with review of the payment and the “value” stated for 34 the purpose of the tax. 35 a. The review and audit process should be conducted within ten (10) days of the 36 “stamping” of the deed. 37 b. Notification to Attorney/Title Company shall be made within five (5) business days 38 of the findings from the review and audit process. 39 Recommendation of IAAO in June 2008 - Assessment Change #11 and 12 40 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED 41 That Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article VI - Exemptions; Tax Appeals Committee, be amended by adding 42 a new Section 102-185 - Appeals to read as follows: 43 Sec. 102-185. Appeals. 44 45 (1) Appeal Date Deadlines (unless otherwise stated on official documentation): 46 Appeal Filing Deadline (Annual Appeals) Apr 30 47 Appeal Filing Deadline ( October 3/4 Supplemental Bills) Oct 30 48 Appeal Filing Deadline (January 1/2 Supplemental Bills) Jan 30 49 Appeal Filing Deadline (April 1/4 Supplemental Bills) Apr 30 50 If a USPAP Summary Appraisal Report is deemed required, an additional thirty (30) day 51 extension, from the original deadline date, will be granted, in accordance with the City of Dover 52 Assessment Appeal Policy #3. 53 Recommendation of the Appeals Committee and Approved by Council November 13, 2007 54 (2) Right to Appeal is lost if appellant has missed the designated appeal date. The appellant may 55 appeal the following April for the next billing cycle. 56 (3) Appeals/refunds, for errors or opinions of value from appellants, will not be heard for prior years. 57 Recommendation of City Assessor 58 ADOPTED: * 59 60 SYNOPSIS 61 The proposed ordinance would include the recommendations of the IAAO by requiring 62 that owners of commercial/industrial income producing properties complete and file 63 annual reports of income and expenses; establish filing deadlines for appeals; provide 64 language that an individuals right to appeal is lost if they miss any designated appeal 65 date; however, the appellant may appeal the following April for the next billing cycle 66 and that appeals/refunds, for errors or opinions of value from appellants, will not be 67 heard for prior years. 68 (SPONSORS: H OGAN, *, *) 69 Actions History 70 April 27, 2009 - Tabled at Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee

EVALUA nON OF THE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURESOF THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE AND APPEAL PROCESS - JUNE 2D08 RECOMMENDA TiONS aNt y •.. Recommendation - Changes to the City Charter and City Code There are a number of recommendations that should be implemented to bring the assessment process in line with current industry standards. r Annual Assessment D<Jte: Institute and clarify the annual assessment date in the City Code. Currently the assessor uses January 1~1of each year as the assessment date. This is probably the most common assessment date in the United States and a date that worl~s very well for the Dover tax system . •.. Valuation of Property as of the Assessment Date: Clarify that all property is valued as of its ownership and current market value as of the January 1" assessment date. Currently property under construction cannot be placed on the tax rolls until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.' This is not common practice in the assessment profession in other states. The general practice is that ail property is assessed as of its status on the assessment date. For example, if a building is under construction as of .January and is 50% complete on that date, then the assessor values the property as its 50% complete status and places this partial value on the annual assessment roll. Then the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the assessor then reassesses the building and adds the additional increased assessment as a supplemental assessment on the next quarterly supplemental assessment date. Property receiving a change in zoning or specific use would also be adjusted based upon the assessment date. ;.... Proration of New Assessment: In the assessment process outlined above, the additicnal increased assessment for the Supplemental Assessment is proraled from the date of the Certificate of Occupancy to the next January 151 annual assessment date. For example, if a building is 50% complete on January 1" and is valued at $100,000 for its incomplete building status and the Certificate of Occupancy is issued on following July is'; the assessor adds the additional $100,000 to the value of the building for the Supplement Roll. The amount to be added to the July Supplemental Roll would be a prorated assessment in the amount of $50,000. ($100,000 X 6/12 = $50,000 or $100,000 X 0.5 = $50,000). The proration of this additional assessment can be done either on a monthly basis (January = 1.00 factor, February = 0.917, March = 0.833 etc.) or daily basis (January 10 = 346/356 or 0.972). Both monthl}' and daily proration's are the basis of adding new construction to the assessment roll and are commonly used throughout the United States. :;.. Addition of Property to Supplemental Roll when Used or OCt;upi€d: Clarify the time period that property can be added to the Supplemental Roll either by the date the Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Building Inspection Department or in those cases when a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued but the new construction is being used or occupied for its intended purpose. This additional language of "being used or occupied for its intended purpose? \\~II allow the assessor to add completed new construction to the supplemental roll whether or not a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. This case may occur for minor residential construction. );- No Supplemental Addition if Increase is less the ;~25,OOD: The City should also codify the current assessment practice of not adding to the supplemental role any neVi construction of less than $25,000 in assessed value. This will eliminate the generation and collection of small tax bills that may in fact cost the City more dollars to process Ihan is actually collected. The new construction of less than $25,000 will be realized on the next annual assessment roll. Evalualion of Ille Praclices & Pror.!1duros of Ille Assessors OffICe & Appe81 Process-June 200a

;- Date of Assessment Roll Filing: The City should add to Ihe City Code the date by which the Assessor is required to finalize and make the annual assessment role available for public inspection. Current practice is that the Assessment Register for the annual assessment roll is completed and available for public review on April 1" of each year. This is a reasonable amount or time fer the Assessor to complete the roll after the January 1'" assessment date and it is recommended that is current practice be codified. ;... Date of Notification of Assessment increase: The City should add to the City Code the date or a period of time after the filing of the assessment rol! by which the Assessor's Office must mail notifications of assessment changes to the property owner. It is generally an industry standard that the assessor must notify the property owner of changes in their assessment in a set period of time. This ensures that all taxpayers receive a notice of assessment change and have sufficient time to file for an appeal if they chose to appaal their new assessment. ;- Elimination of Freehold Requirement: Eliminate the requirement set forth in Section 47 of the City Charter that, "Assessor must be a freeholder within the corporate limits of the city: The requirement that the Assessor must be a freehold is an archaic requirement. No olher City Official is required to be a freeholder. Also, the City Charter does not define the term "freeholder". Interestingly, when we inquired about the definition of the term we received different answers from different City Officials. A common Cl definition is ·One who possesses a freehold:' A freehold is .. ·'An estate in land held in fee simple, in fee tail, or for term of Iife:2 There are two schools of thought on this issua of an assessor being a resident of o the jurisdiction. TImse in favor of a residence requirement believe thai the Assessor should be a taxpaying property owner of the jurisdiction that employs them. On the other hand, those not in favor of a residency requirement believe that the requirement restricts the potential pOOl of applicants for the position. and places the Assessor in the position assessing their own property and the property of their neighbors. If the City Council wishes to continue Ihe requirement that the Assessor be a resident of the City then, at a minimum, the Charter should be Changed. Replace the term "freeholdei' vJith "a residenf. ;... Elimination of Certified Independent outside Appraiser for Reassessment: The City Code Section '102-1 should be changed to eliminate the requirement that the three year " ... reassessment and valuation may be done by a certified independent outside appraiser chosen by the Council: Under current Delaware Slate statutes a certified appraiser must be an individual cerlified by the State Council on Real Estate Appraisers and hold such certification in accordance 'fIith Federal regulations sel forth in the Financial Institutions Reform. Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989. the act of August g, 1989 (FIRREA). This certification is required for fee appraisers performing rsal estate appraisals for federally related transactions. Although Certified Real Estate Appraisers have demonstrated education and competency in appraisal and qualified as regulated profession?ls, this requirement is a very high standard for mass appraisal for assessment purposes. Jurisdictions similar to the City of Dover, utilize companies that specialize in mass appraisal for assessments. The City currently has contract with one such company. Although some of its employees may hold slale certification it is very restrictive and s;,.-pansive to require that all the properties be assessed using certinad appraisers. Also, a different model of performing reassessments is discussed in the section "Adequacy of Staffing" below. ;... Income and Expense Reports: The City Code should be amended to allow the Assessor to require that owners of rental properties complete and file annual reports of income and e;<penses on Torms developed by the Assessor's Office. Income and expense information is invaluable in developing the valuation of income producing properties, both as to the individual properties income and expenses and to the general information related to similar properties 10 develop typical income and expenses for comparable properties. Income producing properties are bought and sold on the real estate market on the basis of I () their ability to generate net income for their owners and the possible of future appreciation in valu£!. The Income Approach to Valuation is the most common used methodology, by both assessors and fee appraisers, to value these types or property. Critical to Ihis approach to valuation is accurate income and Evaluation of the Practices & Procedures of the Asses.'mr's Office & App&a/ Process-June 2008 2

expense information concerning the property being valued. Also critical to this approach is infonnalion concerning other comparable pro~erties or typical property's operating income and expenses. Although there are national services that publish this type of information, the information is at beost regional information Ihat needs Lo be verified and adjusted to the local City of Dover real estate marl,et to ensure accurate individual valuations for the taxpayers of Dover. r Update Tax Stamps Affixing for the Transfer Tax: City Charter in Article III, Section 102-74 and subsequent sections refer to the affIXing of adhesive documentary stamps to the document as evidence of payment of the transfer tax. Section 102-77 requires the Assessor .... :shall make provisions for the sale of such stamps in such places as may be deemed necessary:' This is outdated language. The Charter I I should be updated to reflect the current practice of marking the document with an indication that the fransfer tax has been paid and the amount paid. ;.. Auditing of Transfer Tax: The City Code should be amended to state that the Assessor may review the payment and the "value" stated for purposes of this tax. The review or audit process should also state a J~ period of time for the audit after the filing of the documents with the Assessor. such as ten (10) business days. :.- Update language in the Code to identify or cl<1rify: "true value in money' as "full market value". Delavl8re State Code § 8306. Standard of assessment; requires all property subject to assessment shall be assessed at its true value in money. The clarification or true value in money, as the full market value of J3 the property as of the valuation date, (January 1" of each year) will go further in creating transparency in the assessment process. :.- Recommendations - Adequacy of Staffing The City may wish 10 consider thaI the three year reassessment be completed by a combination of in- house valuations for one to three family residential properties and outside contractors for the apartments, commercial and industrial properties and valuation modeling. This model of conducting a revaluation is often a transilional model between using outside services complelely for reassessment and complete in- house reassessment. If the City staffs the Assessor's Office with an additional Residential Assessment Technician, changes the position of part-cieri, to a full time clerl\. fills the current vacancy in either the Assessor's position or Assistant Assessor position (see Appendix A - 4) it is possible for the City to perform the reassessment with the more limited assistance of an outside contractor. :;. Recommendation - Management Style Annually the Assessor should continue to adopt and communicate a set of specific goals delineating the Formatted: fJU:)(,ts and lIumbcting expectations for the Assessor's Office for the coming year. This should include a level of assessment, what equity measures will be usee! and what the expe::led equity level is, the number of parcels to be physically inspected, the expected number of pennits to be worl~ed, deeds to be processed, land splits, etc. and a quality measure of acceptable error rales. Annually. the Assessor should adopt and communicate an annual assessment calendar. The calendar Formatted: 8u~lets and rzumberir.9_ should include all important legislative and city dates, IT deadlines for data entry closings. important processing dates and periOdic benchmark dates reflecting the levels of tasl;s that must be done to achieve the goals. Institute a Quality Review Program to determine data quality and error rales, as well as uniformity of Formatted: Builcts i:::Iod rJumbf-rmg: practices within the office. After setting the annual goals the Assessor should meet with pertinent staff to develop a strategic plan to Formatted: Butrcls rJnd fJurnbe.;og achieve the goals. Evafuahon of the Prac11ces & Prccedures of We Assessor's Offlce & Appeal Process-June 2008 3

A search feature for recent sales of properties, at minimum for residential properties, should be added. r-crmatted: Oull€tsilnd ttumbering This query function could consist of a "drop-down' list of neighborhoods or sub-sections of the cill! allowing the user to select a subdivision to view recent sales that have occurred within that subdivision. The Assessor's Office Annual Report should be directly available on the Web site . .-It would be helpful to the public for the Assessor's office to provide copies of the applications for such- initiatives as tax relief for Senior and Disabled Citizens. the program for the Tax Abatement for Agricultural in the Assessor's Section of the web site. Also during the time for filing Ia:: relief applications for senioiS and disabled citizens a highlighted link should be on Ihe home page of the City's site for public awareness of this program to assist the eligible ta)(payers of the City. -The information for appealing one's assessment to the Board of Tax Review should be located in the- Fnrmatte::i: Buliets .and tlumbe-(i~9 Assessor's Section of Ihe Vleb site. Although these documents are available on the web site if the visitor searches the site to find them. it is not intuitive to a taxpayer where to find these documents on the site. Information concerning the appeal process should listed both in the both the Assessor's section of the site and in a Board of Tax Review section of the web site. Also, currently the Board of Tax Review's Appeal forms and Policy Statements are on the web. it would be more meaningfully and user-friendly if these policy statement were incorporated into one document that the taxpayer can see and print rather than searching the site and hoping that they found all the information that is needed for submitting an appeal. The Web site needs to be updated regularly to ensure that the public has access to the most accurate Formatted: ---Hurnb{~rifiu -Bu~ets ~nd information. ).- Recommendations - Appraisal Methodology 1r: r( \",e ,Hca e i~ eF(",s t:"" be--.:.u.. '23. );~. a S5 .0"!(t~ m~ ("y''!.:,'! ..iliu :.._.S ; j!~ El'''' a!\ I~ ~l j !-;'.:rt: ;_" J;;. Recommendations - Appraisal Data c. ,~ _~ '''\1 •••••• n.-j;·.~./s~:" be J::;- }- Recommend,1tions: - Appeals and Board of Tax Review It is recommended that tile City of Dover develop a similar impartial Board to review formal complaints from taxpayers. The Board can be elected by the voters of the City or appointed by the City Council. The terms of appointment should be for a periOd of at least four years. in order for members to gain experience in Ihis area of valuation and should have terms that expire in staggering years, so that there is always some experienced members on the Board. -If such an independent Board is created it should be named Board or Assessment Appeals or Board of· Formatted: ~lJn~ts (lOa Uumberin:J Assessment Review. The word "tax" should not be the name of the Board as it is not a "tax" review board but a board that reviews the valuation or assessment of properties. This name change may remove tile misconception that the Board can reduce the ta:: burden on a property owner. The City Code should include a section on property tax exemptions for governmental property. Certainly Forma~,: Bulfels <ami Nm11i:\~ritlg property owned by high levels of government should be exempt by right as these governmental bodies will not pay local property taxes and the current process of the Assessor appealing on behalf of these governments before the City Council does not seem to be a good use of time. The following property owners should be enempt by right and do not have to apply for the exemption: o Property owned by the United States o Prcperty Owned by the State of Delaware IS o Property owned by the County o Property owned by the City Evaluallon of the Pmciices & Procedurcs of thc Assessors Office & Appeal Preccss-Julle 2008 7

The City Code should include a section on property tax exemptions for religious, educational, and other Fornmttcd: nu:h::ts ~n:JIlumht_'rir.g not-far-profit organizations. The typical standard for these exemptions is that the property must be owned by the organizalion and be used for the intended purpose that serves a public benefit. Another characteristic standard for these property tax exemptions is that the organization hold an exemption frem federal taxes in compliance with Section 500 (0) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended and/or a State tax exemption as issued by the State's Department of Revenue. The Code should set forth a process for applying for the exemption and periOdic review of properly that received the exemption to ensure that they are still in compliance. The City Code should be amended to include a section on the exemption process. The exemption can be Fonnntted: BG:lcts and Numbering processed and granted by the Assessor or by the recommended Appeals Board. Either of these two alternates is common in the United States. Often there is a requirement that the exemption application is reviewed by the City's legal counsel to ensure that the organization and property comply with the legal requirem,mts sel forth for the exemplion. It is also recommended that a revi~w of the existing exempt properties be performed to determine the current status of those property owners receiving exemptions and to confirm their continued 501 (c) (3) tax exempt status. A review period of once every five or six years should be codified in the City Code to ensure that the properties receiving an exemption continue 10 quality for the exemption frem the City's property tax. The Assessor's Office and Board of Tax Review must apply their rules and procedures for the appeal Formatted: nul~ctsand Numhcrin<;J process consistently and fairly to all taxpayers. Public trust and acceptance of a tax system is based on the tax being applied "fairly and equitably" to all taxpayers. The requirement, that is stated in the Board's Tax Policy #3 "Procedure For Forma.tted: Uu\!ets i:r.d Nvmbei"V1<J Commercial/lndus/rial/lncome Producing Properties', that these appeals must include a "self-contained written appraisal report" is too high a standard at this level of appeal. The general practice of documentation for an appeal is that this highest standard of a USPAP compliant appraisal is not required until the third level of the appeal process - the appeal to the state courl. The general and more typical standard, at the second level of appeal before a formal board of review, is a recommendaUon that a summary appraisal is submitted to the local appaal board. A summary appraisal is required to meet all the USPAP standards but is not fully written in a report. An appeal should not be dismissed solely on the lack of submitting a USPAP appraisal. The taxpayer should be able to submit the documentation and evidence that they believe is relevant to their case and it is the functbn of the Board to ILo mal(e its decision based on Ihe quantity. quality and credibility of the evidence submitted by the ta:,payer. In many cases the issue{s) of the appeal and valuation of the property do not require: an appraisal but may be issues of law or facts. Also, for many complex commercial properties even the time period for the owner to contract an appraiser that is qualified to appraise the type of property under appeal is greater than thirty days and the lime to produce a USPAP compliant appraisal can be many months. EvalUi}tion of the Practices & Procedures cf the Assessors Office & AP.~clJlPrm ..-css-JU/J9 2008 8

EXCERPT OF OCTOBER 22. 2007 COUNCIL MINUTES The Regular Council Meeting was held on October 22,2007 at 7;34 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. TAX APPEALS COMMITTEE REPORT - OCTOBER 15. 2007 The Tax Appeals Committee met on October 15,2007 with Chairman Ruane presiding. Appeal Process Members requested a better understanding of the Appeal Process and Procedures to aid in the upcoming/ongoing appeals, and requested that more focus be given to the Commercial/Industrial Properties. Members were provided Tax Policy #3, adopted by City Council on November 13,2006, and the State of Illinois Administrative Code. Mr. Capuano explained that he has used the Administrative Code in the past, and although it was good for the size and scope of the State of Illinois, he did not feel it would work as well for the City of Dover. Mr. Capuano stated that the residential properties are generally not an issue during the appeal process, due to the nature of the complaints. They arc usually due to a factual error and can usually be corrected or negotiated between the Assessor's Office and the property owner. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Capuano explained the appeal process timeline, as follows: Annual Appeal: May 01 of each year, the Assessor's Office displays the final values for the new assessment/tax year. Property owners are given fourteen (14) days to appeal their value. This date is given to them at the time assessment registers are displayed. Supplemental Appeals: On October 01, January 01, and April 01 of each year, the Assessor's Office sends out Supplemental Bills to the property owners for new construction, permits, annexations, etc. At the time a supplemental bill is sent out, the property owner is given a "new" value. They are, in letterform, givenfourteen (J 4) daysfi·om the date of the letter to appeal their value, if they so desire. The fourteen (14) day appeal deadline is not in writing, but has been a precedent with the Assessor's Office on the annual appealsfor at lea'i! the past fifteen (15) years. Mr. Capuano stated that any changes in the appeal process may affect the tax collection process. Members discussed alternatives for handling appeals. The committee recommended for the Tax Appeal Process to be backed up to March 31 st for initial annual change of assessment notices; the appellant has thirty (30) days (April 30th) to appeal any differences from the prior tax year; if the appellant requires an appraisal, an additional sixty (60) days for a commercial/industrial property will be given; and that this additional sixty (60) days will also be applied to Supplemental Billing for Commercial/Industrial properties, if the appellant requires an appraisal. By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumpby moved for approval oftbe committee's recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

EXCERPT OF NOVEMBER 13. 2007 COUNCIL MINUTES The Regular Council Meeting was held on November 13,2007 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, and Mr. Salters. Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane were absent. SUPPLEMENTARY PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS - TIME FOR APPEAL/APPRAISAL SUBMISSION During their Regular Meeting of October 22, 2007, City Council adopted a recommendation of the Tax Appeals Committee to extend the time allowed for tax appeals and the submission of appraisals. The recommendation was to extend the time to allow for an appeal rrom 14 days to 30 days and an additional 60 days for a commercial/industrial property to submit an appraisal as part of the appeal process in cases requiring such appraisals. The Tax Appeals Committee's intent was to have these extended times to apply to tax billings resulting rrom the quarterly supplemental property reassessments, including the quarter that ended September 30,2007; however, this was not made explicit in the motion that was approved. By making this explicit, Council will assure due process for any appeal of supplemental tax billings for the period ending September 30, 2007. Staff recommended that the Tax Assessor be instructed to allow 30 days for a tax appeal of supplemental tax billings for the quarter ending September 30,2007 and an additional 60 days for commercial/industrial property owners to provide an appraisal in those cases where such an appraisal is required. Mr. Salters moved for approval of staff's recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent).

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2009-05 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Chapter 102 – Taxation, Article I - In General, be amended by adding a new Section 5 - Income 4 and expense reports, to read as follows: 5 Section 102-5. Income and expense reports. 6 The Assessor shall require that all commercial/industrial income producing property, within the city 7 limits of Dover, complete and file annual reports of Income and Expenses on forms developed by the 8 Assessor. Failure to provide the Assessor with an Income and Expense Report will result in a $100.00 9 fine. Income and Expense reports will be mailed to property owners and will be due within thirty (30) 10 days of receipt of request by the Assessor. 11 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED 12 That Chapter 102 – Taxation, Article III - Realty Transfer Tax, Section 102-77 - Duties of city assessor, 13 be amended to read as follows: 14 Section 102-77. Duties of city assessor. 15 In addition to the other duties of the city assessor: 16 (1) Stamps. The city assessor shall prepare and furnish adhesive stamps of such denominations 17 and in such quantities as may be necessary for the payment of the tax imposed by this article and 18 shall make provisions for the sale of such stamps in such places as may be deemed necessary and 19 indicate on the document the amount of transfer tax that has been paid. 20 (2) Other evidence of payment. The city assessor may, by regulations, provide for the evidence 21 of the payment of the tax to be shown on the document by means other than the affixing of 22 documentary stamps. 23 (3) Regulations. The city assessor is charged with the enforcement of this article and is 24 authorized and empowered to prescribe, adopt, promulgate, and enforce regulations relating to: 25 a. The method to be used in affixing or cancelling of stamps in substitution for or in 26 addition to the method and means provided in this article. 27 b. The denomination and sale of stamps. 28 c. Any other matter or thing pertaining to the administration and enforcement of this 29 article. 30 (4) Audit. The city assessor is charged with review of the payment and the “value” stated for 31 the purpose of the tax. 32 a. The review and audit process should be conducted within ten (10) days of the 33 “stamping” of the deed. 34 b. Notification to Attorney/Title Company shall be made within five (5) business days 35 of the findings from the review and audit process.

Proposed Ordinance #2009-05 - Chapter 102 - Taxation Page 2 36 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED 37 That Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article VI - Exemptions; Tax Appeals Committee, be amended by adding 38 a new Section 102-185 - Appeals to read as follows: 39 Sec. 102-185. Appeals. 40 41 (1) Appeal Date Deadlines (unless otherwise stated on official documentation): 42 Appeal Filing Deadline (Annual Appeals) Apr 30 43 Appeal Filing Deadline ( October 3/4 Supplemental Bills) Oct 30 44 Appeal Filing Deadline (January 1/2 Supplemental Bills) Jan 30 45 Appeal Filing Deadline (April 1/4 Supplemental Bills) Apr 30 46 If a USPAP Summary Appraisal Report is deemed required, an additional thirty (30) day extension, 47 from the original deadline date, will be granted, in accordance with the City of Dover Assessment 48 Appeal Policy #3. 49 (2) Right to Appeal is lost if appellant has missed the designated appeal date. The appellant may 50 appeal the following April for the next billing cycle. 51 (3) Appeals/refunds, for errors or opinions of value from appellants, will not be heard for prior years. 52 ADOPTED: * 53 SYNOPSIS 54 The proposed ordinance would include the recommendations of the IAAO by requiring 55 that owners of commercial/industrial income producing properties complete and file 56 annual reports of income and expenses; establish filing deadlines for appeals; provide 57 language that an individuals right to appeal is lost if they miss any designated appeal 58 date; however, the appellant may appeal the following April for the next billing cycle 59 and that appeals/refunds, for errors or opinions of value from appellants, will not be 60 heard for prior years. 61 (SPONSORS: H OGAN, *, *) 62 Actions History 63 April 27, 2009 - Tabled at Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee AGENDA ITEM NO.: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Human Resources DATE SUBMITTED: 4/1/09 PREPARED BY: Anthony DePrima, City Manager and Kim Hawkins, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Implementation of Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 –Pay for Performance Evaluation System REFERENCE: Phase 2 of MAG report RELATED PROJECT: Phase 1 of MAG report APPROVALS: City Council EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: 21 Recommendations from MAG Exhibit 2: Employee Recommendations Exhibit 3: Performance Scores Definition Exhibit 4: PFP Instructions Exhibit 5: PFP Policy Exhibit 6: MAG Phase 2 Report EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: AMOUNT BUDGETED: FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): TIMETABLE: Some aspects will be completed immediately while others will be presented by February 2010. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Implementation of Recommendations as Outlined in Exhibits BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS In September 2007 City Council indicated a desire to have the Pay for Performance Policy and its implementation to be evaluated to determine whether it is meeting its original purpose. Interviews were held with two consultants in November /December 2007. At the January 28, 2008 Leg and Fin meeting, the request to award the bid was tabled awaiting mid-year review of the budget for funding purposes. At the March 10, 2008 Leg and Fin meeting it was recommended to approve the awarding of the bid to Management Advisory Group (MAG). Council approved this recommendation on March 24, 2008. In May 2008 the scope of the contract expanded to review the salaries of non-bargaining employees and the salary ranges of all non- bargaining positions. MAG obtained our current PFP documents from the City Manager and Human Resources Director. MAG conducted two sets of mandatory on-site meetings with all non-bargaining employees. One set of meeting was held in October and the other in December. The meetings were intended to obtain the employee’s perceptive of the weaknesses and strengths of the PFP system and solutions to their concerns. The meetings were also held with City Council members. At the conclusion of the second meeting, employees were encouraged to submit a confidential survey regarding the PFP evaluation system. MAG issued the final report on February 13, 2009 and presented its findings to LFA on February 23, 2009. Based upon the conclusions that MAG developed, the following is their recommendations, as well as the City Manager’s and Human Resources for your consideration. Indicated in Exhibit 1 are MAG’s 21 recommended changes to the current evaluation system. In addition, Exhibit 2 provides a summary of the comments from the employees that will be implemented or further studied. As previously mentioned, all non-bargaining employees and City Council had an opportunity to provide input to the strengths, weakness and solutions of the PFP evaluation system.

One of MAG’s recommendations (recommendation #5-#7) was to change the title of three performance ratings. Exhibit 3 illustrations these suggested changes. As a result of MAG’s recommendation as well as the employee’s comments, the PFP instructions and policy needed to be updated to reflect the recommendations. The updated instructions are provided in Exhibit 4 and the policy is Exhibit 5. While the MAG Phase 2 report was provided at the February 23rd Leg and Fin meeting is it being provided once again in electronic format.

Exhibit 1 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Recommendation April 13, 2009 Rec. # Page # in MAG’s Recommended Action City’s Recommended Action Estimated Phase 2 Report Completion Date & Related Exhibit Attached 1 2‐4 Change the PFP policy to require training for supervisors Update language: Change the PFP Immediately once per year. If training is not attended, deny any policy to require training for salary increase for which the supervisor may be eligible. supervisors once per year. If training is not attended, deny any salary increase for which the supervisor Exhibit 5, page 5 may be eligible. The City Manager Exhibit 5‐ may excuse a supervisor from the Appendix A training. 2 2‐5 Establish a more precise time frame within the set of This recommendation is in reference Immediately Instructions so as to clearly define the time allotted for to allowing sufficient time for the HR each step in the performance review cycle. Director to review evaluations. The instructions have been updated to Exhibit 4, page 1 include a time frame of five days. 3 2‐5 Written quarterly reviews should be done by Required quarterly reviews will begin Implement July Department Heads, and documented in the evaluation July 1, 2009 as this review cycle is 1, 2009 Exhibit 4, page 2 by entering into the PFP software. ending. 4 2‐5 All evaluated employees should conduct self evaluation, The PFP instructions will be updated Effective with with the purpose of then comparing them at the formal accordingly. reviews to be Exhibit 4 performance evaluation meeting. completed by page 3 May 31, 2009. 5 2‐6 Change the current performance form label of “Good” The PFP evaluation will be updated. Effective with to “Meets Expectations” on the evaluation form. reviews to be Exhibit 3 completed by Exhibit 4, page 4 May 31, 2009. 6 2‐6 Change the current performance form label of The PFP evaluation will be updated. Effective with “Acceptable with Some Improvements Needed” to reviews to be Improvement Needed” on the evaluation form. completed by Exhibit 3 May 31, 2009. 7 2‐7 Change the current performance label of “Outstanding” The PFP evaluation will be updated. Effective with to “Results Rarely Achieved by Others.” reviews to be Exhibit 3 completed by Exhibit 4, page 4 May 31, 2009.

Exhibit 1 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Recommendation April 13, 2009 Rec. # Page # in MAG’s Recommended Action City’s Recommended Action Estimated Phase 2 Report Completion Date & Related Exhibit Attached 8 4‐5 Create a committee structure to evaluate Council If Council wants to pursue further, a FY10 appointed positions that would make recommendation separate Committee Action Form on compensation adjustments for the evaluated will be prepared and presented. employee. 9 4‐5 Apply the changes noted in Section 5.0 to the This will become a goal for the HR Present to City development of Core Competencies for the Council Director for FY10. A committee will Council by positions. See recommendation #15 ‐ Streamline and be formed to formally discuss. February 2010. enhance Core Competency and Element statements. 10 5‐3 Base the movement within the pay grade on the According to MAG, this will be concept of a “normal progression” career plan for achieved by implementing employees who “Meet Expectations” to reach midpoint Recommendation #11. in 10 years. 11 5‐4 Use the arithmetic midpoint of the position’s assigned Use the described method for July 1, 2009 Exhibit 5 pay grade as the basis for calculating potential calculating July 1, 2009 pay page 1 & 2 performance adjustments. increases. Ex. 5 Appexd. A 12 5‐6 Establish a simple and straightforward program for Create a matrix for awarding July 1 July 1, 2009 potential adjustments of zero (0) through an annually pay increases. determined percentage amount, based on budget Appendix will be created based upon Exhibit 5 – availability. budget and market conditions. Appendix A 13 5‐8 Automate the statistical normalization of rater This will become a goal for the HR Present to City comparisons. Director for FY10. Council by February 2010. 14 5‐8 Hold up salary adjustments until all evaluations are Not recommended for Immediately complete; publish stragglers on the City’s intranet. implementation. We wish to continue our current practice of extending the specific tardy department head’s salary increase. “Stragglers” will be handled by the Exhibit 4, page 1 supervisor.

Exhibit 1 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Recommendation April 13, 2009 Rec. # Page # in MAG’s Recommended Action City’s Recommended Action Estimated Phase 2 Report Completion Date & Related Exhibit Attached 15 5‐12 Streamline and enhance Core Competency and Element This will become a goal for the HR Present to City statements. See Rec. #9 Director for FY10. A committee will Council by be formed to formally discuss. February 2010. 16 6‐1 Continue to complete performance evaluations annually No additional action needed. Exhibit 4, page 2 as dictated by current policy. 17 6‐2 Require quarterly review of all employees being Additional monitoring of quarterly Implement July Exhibit 4, page 2 evaluated. reviews will be maintained. 1, 2009. 18 6‐3 Add responsible participation in the PFP as a The core competency for Supervisory Effective July 1, Supervisory Core Competency Skills will be updated accordingly. 2009 19 6‐3 Add monitoring and reminder goals to the Core Rather than modify the PFP Effective July 1, Competency of the HR Director – Include monitoring goals evaluation for this one 2009 for the HR Director to ensure consistency with the City’s recommendation, this suggestion will Strategic Plan, reminding departments of the need for become a standing goal for the HR quarterly reviews, setting up annual training on the program, Director. and identifying unusual scoring patterns to the City Manager, the Department Head and the rater. This should be reflected in the Supervisory Core Competency. 20 6‐4 Continue the current process for appeals. No action needed. Exhibit 5, page 4 21 6‐5 Any pay out for performance over the maximum of the In addition to the proposed Effective with range is a lump‐sum one‐time payout that does not roll language, add, “the city reserves the pay increases into the base salary. right not to award any pay increase awarded on July for employee’s whose salary is over 1, 2009. Exhibit 5, page 2 the maximum of the range.” Exhibit 5 – Appendix A

Exhibit 2 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Employee Comments April 13, 2009 Section 3 and Appendix 2 of Management Advisory Group’s (MAG) Phase 2 report provides the anonymous views of employees and supervisors who attended workshops conducted by MAG in October and December 2008. The views are in response to a series of questions posed to employees who are evaluated under the PFP Evaluation System. Employees were also asked to review the entire MAG Phase 2 report and submit any additional comments to either the City Manager or the Human Resources Director. While employees were provided approximately two and half weeks to submit additional comments, no additional comments were received. In analyzing Section 3 and Appendix 2, the City Manager and Human Resources Director extensively reviewed all the comments. While all the comments were considered valuable and will be reviewed frequently, eight recommendations will be further addressed. They are indicated in the table. Blank Intentionally

Exhibit 2 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Employee Comments April 13, 2009 Rec. Employee Suggestion Intended City’s Date of Completion Recommendation 1 Goals don’t flow down in a timely City Council/City Manager Implemented in FY 10. manner and Mayor to establish goals for Department Heads by March 31 of each year. Exhibit 4, page 5 2 Goals are not realistic under All supervisors are to be Effective with current work load mindful of the number of evaluations for FY 10. goals being assigned. Employees can create their own goals for review by their supervisor. The HR Director Exhibit 4, page 5 & 6 will be more astute to the Exhibit 5, page 2 number being assigned. 3 All evaluations are due at the same This issue is being addressed July 1, 2009 time thus causing a heavy work by requiring quarterly load in a short amount of time reviews. Thus as the fiscal year ends three fourths of the evaluation should be Exhibit 4, page 2 complete. 4 Implement weighting of goals This option will be considered If implemented, it will an evaluation committee that become effective in FY will be created. 10. 5 Do not require an explanation for a Explanation for a score of Effective for performance score of three and three will not be required. evaluations being four completed for FY09. Exhibit 4, page 4 6 High performers are not awarded The salary matrix provides for Immediately additional compensation for employees who receive a higher than average performance score. An improved effort will be provided by supervisors in rewarding high performers with non-monetary incentives and actions. 7 Provide educational training to Training will begin being Immediately employees on the PFP system and offered to employees. process Exhibit 5, page 5 8 Do not assign goals during It is realized that the Immediately probationary period probationary period is a time for learning. Only when necessary will goals be Exhibit 4, page 2 assigned.

Exhibit 3 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Recommendations Performance Rating Definitions April 13, 2009 PERFORMANCE RATING DEFINITIONS OUTSTANDING: RESULTS RARELY ACHIEVED BY OTHERS Performance Points 5 MAG Rec. #7, page 2-7 of MAG Phase 2 report This level of performance represents the achievement of significant and exceptional results. The employee consistently achieved additional, significant results beyond established targets and significantly exceeds position requirements. The employee actively and continuously exhibits initiative and innovation and serves as a model for others. COMMENDABLE: Performance Points 4 Demonstrates above-average knowledge, skills, abilities and effort. Performance goes beyond the position requirements and exceeds expected results. Performance measurably exceeds expectations. Employee exhibits initiative and resourcefulness in going beyond expectations of job performance in accomplishing goals and objectives. GOOD: MEETS EXPECTATIONS Performance Points 3 MAG Rec. #5, page 2-6 of MAG Phase 2 report The employee is effective, with good, solid performance as demonstrated by achieving a majority of results and demonstrating most competencies successfully. Job performance is accomplished in an efficient and competent manner. This performance is fully satisfactory and meets acceptable or expected standards for the job. Work efficiency and effectiveness support the overall productivity of the work unit. Employee accomplishes assigned tasks with expected direction and assistance. ACCEPTABLE WITH SOME IMPROVEMENT NEEDED: IMPROVEMENT NEEDED Performance Points 2 MAG Rec. #6, page 2-6 of MAG Phase 2 report The employee has met the basic expectations however has not performed the assigned duties in a fully competent manner thus requiring additional support of others. Inefficiency and/or ineffectiveness effects the productivity of the work unit. Does not consistently demonstrate the required knowledge, skills, abilities and/or effort for this position. Higher level of performance may be possible through increased effort, training and guidance. Performance at this level will be subject to continued careful assessment. UNSATISFACTORY: Performance Points 1 Minimum standards for the job are not met; job duties are performed at a marginal level or not performed, or must be performed by others. There is minimal contribution to work unit productivity. Employee is unwilling or unable to improve. A need for further improvement is clearly recognized, identified and must occur immediately. Employee requires constant and close supervision. Continued performance at this level, absent any potential or evidence of immediate improvement will lead to progressive discipline up to and including termination.

Exhibit 4 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Revisions to PFP Instructions April 13, 2009 Instructions for the Performance Review Cycle Please realize that annual reviews are due to the Human Resources Director by May 31. A supervisor shall arrange to meet with the employee to discuss the employee’s evaluation no later than June 25 of each year. Failure to provide a completed evaluation for an employee in a timely manner, no later then July 1, will cause the effective date of the Department Head’s pay-for-performance pay increase, if one was granted, to be extended by the number of days the evaluation was not received if the failure to submit a completed evaluation harms the evaluated employee. For example, if pay-for-performance increases are effective July 1 and the Department Head submits the evaluation on July 5 (five days late), the Department Head’s pay-for-performance increase would be granted, if he or she was entitled to one, on July 5. The employee’s increase, if one was granted, would be retroactive to July 1. MAG Rec. #14, page 5-8 of MAG Phase 2 report Sufficient time for review by the Human Resources Director shall be considered when determining a timely manner. For example, submission of the evaluation on June 30 may not provide ample time for the Director to review and return to the evaluator. This may cause harm to the evaluated employee. A minimum of five days should be allowed for review by the Human Resources Director. MAG Rec. #2, page 2-5 of MAG Phase 2 report Before conducting a performance evaluation, a supervisor must give an employee a reasonable time to demonstrate performance. THROUGHOUT THE YEAR Observe and document the employee’s performance and give immediate feedback whenever possible. Documentation at this point can be somewhat informal, but try to keep a record of what the employee does, both good and bad. This record will be very helpful in completing the remarks/example section of the evaluation as well as ensuring the employee is not being evaluated on a short timeframe. Ask the employee for input about their performance during the year. This is important because the performance review should be based on two-way communication, so that it is not merely a “report card.” The employee’s input can be any combination of the following: • A draft performance appraisal prepared by the employee • A list of accomplishments and significant events • An informal discussion between the employee and supervisor It is important to keep in mind that the supervisor should collaborate and seek advice from others in evaluating the employee throughout the year. Other supervisors, employees, customers, division and department heads may be able to provide important insights. April 2009 -1-

Exhibit 4 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Revisions to PFP Instructions April 13, 2009 QUARTERLY REVIEW (generally October, December and March) Meet informally formally MAG Rec. #3 & #17, page 2-5 and 6-2 of MAG Phase 2 report with the employee to discuss progress toward the goals and objectives as outlined in Part 3 of the Pay- for-Performance Evaluation for the previous year. Update, add or remove goals as necessary since the last review in the PFP software. MAG Rec. #3 & #17, page 2-5 and 6-2 of MAG Phase 2 report and Employee Rec. #3 Unexpected and unplanned assignments may arise. As new goals are added, it is important to evaluate the employee’s capacity to accomplish already established goals. By keeping goals and objectives current, the necessity of documenting unplanned assignments in “Part 1” during the Annual Review will be minimized. Indicate any additional comments by the supervisor or employee in the supervisor’s log/journal. PROBATIONARY REVIEW All new employees shall receive a formal probationary review for no less than six months of active service and no more than seven months of active service. It is understood that the probationary period is a learning period. Goals are not required during the probationary period however if appropriate, goals could be assigned. Employee Rec. #8 (Exhibit 2) Goals are to be established for the new employee to complete during the probationary period. See next section, Annual Review, for additional information. ANNUAL REVIEW Annual reviews are required for all employees. MAG Rec. #16, page 6-1 of MAG Phase 2 report Employees hired between July 1 and November 30 of each year shall receive a probationary review for no less than six months of active service and no more than seven months of active service in addition to an annual review in May. On July 1, the employee would be eligible for a pay-for-performance increase. Employees hired between December 1 and June 30 shall not receive an annual review in May; however, they would receive a probationary review upon completion of six months of active service and no more than seven months of active service. Employees would be eligible for a pay-for-performance increase at their one-year employment anniversary. These employees would then receive an annual review in May of the following year and be eligible for a pay-for- performance increase on July 1 of the following year. The pay-for-performance evaluation instructions are available on Public Docs in the Pay for Performance folder while the evaluation is available on the City’s intranet, http://intranet/projects/pfpfb/. http://intranet/new. For assistance, please contact the Human Resources Department. It is important to inform the employee that his or her yearly evaluation is due. The supervisor shall set a meeting date and time with the employee to review the evaluation. This will ensure that everyone has ample time to prepare for the evaluation. April 2009 -2-

Exhibit 4 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Revisions to PFP Instructions April 13, 2009 It is important to keep in mind that the supervisor should collaborate and seek advice from others in developing the evaluation. Other supervisors, employees, customers, division and department heads may be able to provide important insights into the evaluation process. SELF EVALUATION A self-evaluation is not required by the employee unless requested by the supervisor. A self- evaluation is strongly encouraged since it is provides an opportunity for an the employee to inform the evaluating supervisor of surrounding circumstances or extraordinary efforts that were involved in the completion of the goals. MAG Rec. #4, page 2-5 of MAG Phase 2 report Evaluators will be specifically seeking the employee’s synopsis of the results achieved on his or her planned and unplanned goals. The employee shall be given a copy of a blank evaluation in July by his or her evaluator so that he or she may prepare a self-evaluation prior to the formal discussion of the evaluation. maintain the evaluation for quarterly and yearly reviews. MAG Rec. #4, page 2-5 of MAG Phase 2 report The employee may also wish to indicate goals they would like to achieve in the next review period. Goals should be related to the overall vision and mission of the City as well as the employee’s department. Professional development opportunities are not considered goals and should not be noted in the goal section of the evaluation. For example, complete an Excel class. JOB DESCRIPTION Obtain the current job description for the employee’s position to be reviewed by the employee and supervisor during the annual budget process. In general this review will occur in December or January each year. The job description shall be reviewed by the employee and the supervisor individually. Reviewing the job description annually will ensure that the job description remains up to date with current job duties. All changes must be submitted to the Human Resources Director for consideration and final approval. If appropriate, the HR Director may recommend the position be re-graded. COMPLETING THE PAY FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM Page One The intranet system will automatically complete Page 1 of the evaluation. Please realize that each non-bargaining position has been assigned a weight for goals and objectives and one for core competencies. If you think that the weights need to be changed, please contact the Human Resources Director. If you need assistance, please contact the Human Resources Department. PART 1: Planned Goal and Unplanned Assignment Results This section is to include comments on the degree and qualities of the results achieved and note any extenuating circumstances affecting the results. It should also be noted how well an April 2009 -3-

Exhibit 4 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Revisions to PFP Instructions April 13, 2009 employee did in accomplishing the objectives and if they were completed in a timely manner. A status report on each goal and unplanned assignment is required. Assign performance points based upon the Performance Rating Definitions and the Key as noted in the Performance Rating tab of the Pay for Performance intranet system. The performance score shall be indicated in the Performance Rating box. Narrative information is very important in the review process and is required in Part 1 of the evaluation; therefore, include remarks and whenever possible, specific examples. It is very important to consider the difficulty of the goals and objectives when scoring. Goals and objectives can have different degrees of difficulty. The completion of a relatively easy goal and objective should not be scored the same as completing a difficult goal and objective. An easily attainable goal that is completed should be rated “good meets expectations,” MAG Rec. #5, page 2-6 of MAG Phase 2 report a more difficult goal should be rated “commendable,” and achieving a very difficult goal should be “outstanding results rarely achieved by others.” MAG Rec. #7, page 2-7 of MAG Phase 2 report A very difficult goal or objective that may be only partially completed may score the same as an easily attainable goal that is completed. It is very important that the difficulty of the goal and objective not be gauged on the employee’s ability, but on its relative difficulty when compared to goals and objectives assigned to others. After completing the Planned Goals and Objectives section, proceed to the Major Unplanned Assignments contained in Part 1. This section should be completed in the same manner as Planned Goals and Objectives. Major unplanned assignments are assignments which either were not included on the previous year’s evaluation or were added during the quarterly review and were not scheduled for completion throughout the fiscal year and required at least 40 hours to complete. The performance score is determined by dividing the sum of the points by the number of Planned Goals and Unplanned Assignments. The result is then rounded to the nearest tenth. This figure will be automatically calculated once the evaluation is saved. Please refer to page one of the evaluation. PART 2: Core Competency Elements Each employee shall be evaluated on all the core competencies indicated in Part 2 with the exception of categories that pertain to employees who supervise. This category is indicated. The supervisor should review the Performance Rating Definitions on page 2 of the evaluation or contained in the Performance Rating tab of the Pay for Performance intranet system prior to completing this section. Specific examples are to be provided in addition to remarks in the space provided. It is required to provide documentation for a performance score of 1 and 2 as well as a performance score of 5. A performance rating of three does not require an explanation. Employee Rec. #5 (Exhibit 2) Specific examples and documentation is recommended for a performance score of 4. Employees need to be aware how they are deficient as well as how they performance is at or above the desired level. The examples provided for each competency on April 2009 -4-

Exhibit 4 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Revisions to PFP Instructions April 13, 2009 the evaluation form should be used as guidelines in developing the narrative in the remarks/example section rather than merely copied. Upon the completion of evaluating all core competencies, save the evaluation. By saving the evaluation the score will automatically be calculated. Once the weighted scores for planned goal and unplanned assignment results and core competencies have been calculated the employee’s overall score will automatically be calculated by the intranet system. This is calculated by adding the two weighted scores together. Overall Comments A detailed narrative is be included in the Overall Comments section (located at the end of Part 2, Core Competencies) of the evaluation. This section should be used for the supervisor to express any comments or concerns that were not addressed previously in the evaluation. PART 3: Major Responsibilities for Next Year List goals and objectives for the coming year that are to be evaluated during the next evaluation. Evaluators are to be mindful of the number of goals that are assigned to employees. Employee Rec. #2 (Exhibit 2) Each year Department Heads are to receive their goals by March 31. Employee Rec. #1 (Exhibit 2)This will assist the departments in preparing goals for their employees. It is encouraged that employee be involved in the development of the departments fiscal year strategic goals. Employee Rec. #2 (Exhibit 2) All goals are to be written in the S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistically high, and Target date) format. These goals are to be discussed with the employee during the formal evaluation process and reviewed quarterly to determine the employee’s progress toward reaching them. For information regarding S.M.A.R.T., please contact the Human Resources Department. PART 4: Employee’s Professional Development Plan Establish a Development Plan listing actions that the employee can take to improve performance for the coming year. This may include suggestions for education and training, reading material, research, job shadowing, counseling and other self-improvement programs. The Development Plan should include specific actions that the employee can take to enhance performance. This section of the evaluation affords the evaluator and the employee an opportunity to collaborate on how the employee’s performance can be improved both as an individual and as a part of a team. This section should be taken very seriously and should be considered one of the most important parts of the evaluation. Submission for Additional Approval Human Resources Quality Control Review Upon completing the evaluation, please electronically “Forward” the evaluation. This function is within the Pay for Performance intranet system. This function indicates to the next approving supervisor/department head that the evaluation has been completed and is ready for their review. The intranet system allows the evaluation to be forwarded as well as “Returned”. The proper April 2009 -5-

Exhibit 4 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Revisions to PFP Instructions April 13, 2009 chain of command must be followed in order for the evaluation to reach the Human Resources Director for final approval review. Throughout the approval review process, a supervisor may return the evaluation to the previous level. This process should be continued until the final approval review is received from completed by the Human Resources Director. The evaluation is not to be presented to the employee until it has been approved reviewed by the Human Resources Director. If the evaluation is presented to the employee before the Human Resources Director approves reviews it, the evaluator may be subject to presenting the evaluation again to the employee. Review with the Employee Once final approval review is received from completed by the Human Resources Director, the supervisor shall meet with the employee at the time and date originally scheduled at the beginning of the evaluation process. The supervisor may shall provide a copy of the completed evaluation up to at a minimum of two days prior to the meeting to the employee. This will allow for the employee an opportunity to preview review the evaluation prior to the meeting. At this the same time, the employee may shall give the supervisor a preview copy of the his or her self-evaluation. Included in the self-evaluation should be at a minimum two SMART goals that the employee developed. The department head/supervisor can consider the goals for inclusion in the evaluation. Employee Rec. #2 (Exhibit 2)During the review, the individual’s performance, strengths, and developmental needs are to be discussed. Explain the reasons for the review. For example, probationary, annual, special or for another reason. During the review, an open line of communication should be maintained. This is when the employee’s and the supervisor will compare the employee’s self-evaluation should be compared with the supervisor’s evaluation. The supervisor as well as the employee being evaluated should be open- minded toward comments made. After the formal review with the employee, the supervisor may need to modify the original evaluation to include information the employee presented during the review process. Signatures The employee and the supervisor must sign the evaluation once it has been reviewed together. The employee’s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the evaluation. If the employee refuses to sign a performance evaluation, the supervisor must make a notation on the evaluation to indicate that the employee refused to sign the evaluation. The employee and supervisor may attach an addendum. The evaluation shall be presented to the Department Head for review and signature. The Department Head shall then forward the evaluation to the Human Resources Director. Once the evaluation has been finalized, make a copy of the evaluation for the employee. Once the evaluation is submitted to Human Resources, the Human Resources Director will sign the evaluation. Human Resources will then forward to the department a copy of the signature page. April 2009 -6-

Exhibit 4 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 Revisions to PFP Instructions April 13, 2009 The employee shall be informed that the evaluation will be placed in the employee’s personnel file maintained in the Human Resources Department. Evaluations become a permanent record in the employee’s file. April 2009 -7-

Exhibit 5 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 PFP Policy April 13, 2009 City of Dover Performance Based Pay Policy For Non-Bargaining Employees April 19, 2005 April 13, 2009 I. Purpose The City of Dover Performance Based Pay Policy is intended to provide equitable compensation based on performance for all exempt and non-exempt positions when considered in relation to each other and to general pay ranges for similar employment elsewhere. This policy rewards excellence in core competencies, as well as the ability to get results. This will allow the City to maintain an effective, responsible and loyal work force, and allow us to recruit and retain high quality employees. The Policy establishes pay ranges and maintains an effective ongoing pay system for appropriate compensation recognizing the importance of results-based performance. II. Pay Plan Maintenance New market-based salary ranges shall be adopted every year after consideration of a market survey that considers both external and internal movement in market salaries. The ranges shall establish an entry-level rate, market rate a mid-point MAG Rec. #11, page 5-4 of MAG Phase 2 report and a maximum rate. The purpose of the market survey is to ensure our salaries are moving appropriately based upon the market. The key is to remain consistent in the yearly evaluation. Sources will include, however not limited to the following: • Employment Cost Index (ECI) • Local government organization: o Kent County o State of Delaware o City of Newark o City of Salisbury, Maryland o Any other government organizations that is deemed comparable • The Bureau of National Affairs, (BNA) will to utilized to research percentage of increased awarded to bargaining units in the state and local government section. • Salary increases awarded to City of Dover bargaining units Every five years the City will retain the services of a professional labor market researcher to determine if the City’s ranges are being adjusted accordingly. The City Manager will forward the results of the market survey and his recommendations to Council for consideration during the annual budget April 2009 -1-

Exhibit 5 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 PFP Policy April 13, 2009 process. The increases in salary ranges shall not be considered as cost of living increases, but shall serve to keep ranges up to date so that employees’ performance is properly evaluated within the context of where their salary lies within the market place. III. Performance Evaluations and Advancement Guidelines Performance evaluations must be completed annually, prior to any consideration for an increase in pay. No supervisor shall receive an increase in pay until subordinate evaluations are complete. The evaluation will include measurement of the results of predetermined goals and objectives, unplanned assignment results and core competencies. The evaluations shall give goals and objectives for the coming evaluation year. The amount of the proposed pay increase will be determined by the overall Performance Score as applied to the Pay-for-Performance Worksheet in accordance with the table found on the worksheet. The Pay-for-Performance Worksheet shall be approved by City Council with the annual budget. Appendix A is the model Pay-for-Performance Worksheet; the areas where percentage increases will be placed have been left blank. Each year, salary increases will be determined by a percentage of the mid- point of each salary range. Once the percentage of mid-point is determined, percentage decreases or increases will be awarded based upon the employee’s individual score. MAG Rec. #11, page 5-4 of MAG Phase 2 report Any salary increase granted to an employee whose salary is above the maximum of the labor range shall receive a one-time lump sum payment that does not roll into the employee’s base salary. MAG Rec. #21, page 6-5 of MAG Phase 2 report The city reserves the right not to award any pay increase for employee’s whose salary is over the maximum of the range. In general, the percentage increase for employees scoring between 21 and 30 evaluation points whose current salary is within the market range (within the 2nd third of their salary range) will receive an increase equivalent to market increases as determined by the annual market survey. In general, employees with lower scores will receive lower percentage increases, and those with higher scores will receive higher percentage increases. To advance employees to the market rate, employees who are compensated at levels below market will receive increases that are higher than those who are at and above the market with similar performance scores. In some cases with low scores or salaries above maximum, there may be no increases. While it is the intent of the City to keep salaries competitive within the market place, the City Council reserves the right to set percentage increases based on what it determines the City can afford regardless of changes in the market. April 2009 -2-

Exhibit 5 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 PFP Policy April 13, 2009 IV. Evaluation Quality Control Systems To ensure quality control, the Human Resources Department will review the latest employee performance evaluations in August of each year prior to presentation to the employee to ensure that they have clear and concise goals and objectives with expected results that are aligned with the City’s Strategic Organizational Plan. Goals are to be S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistically High, Target Date). In addition, to review if ample or insufficient goals have been assigned to the employee. Employee Rec. #2 (Exhibit 2) The comments supporting the results achieved must be specific to the goals and/or competencies and not just a repetition of the goal or objective. Achievement or lack thereof of results and progression in core competencies are to be outlined in these comments. The Human Resources Department will also review the evaluators for unusual patterns such as consistently high/low patterns of scoring, as well as incomplete or unrelated comments to support the performance points associated with the goals and objectives. While there are no formal quotas, there is an expectation that scoring will naturally fall into a normalized pattern, particularly as evaluations are considered over time and in groups. Feedback will be given to evaluators and their department heads to give them the opportunity to justify the perceived inequities or patterns and if necessary correct the problem(s). V. Procedures for New Job Titles/Grades and Re-grading and Retitling Existing Positions To establish new job titles, grade new positions, or re-grade and re-title existing positions where job responsibilities have changed, the following procedure must be followed (Please note that the procedure could be modified by the City Manager during the budget process.): 1. Department heads must submit a proposed job description along with a completed Position Analysis Factor (PAF) Guide to the Human Resources Department with an explanation outlining the reasons for the new title, re- grade or new position. The Human Resources Department will enter the Position Analysis into the Job Analysis Qualification (JAQ) software to determine the salary grade. The Human Resources Director shall compile all of the new positions, new titles and new grades and forward them to the City Manager for consideration within the annual budget. 2. To ensure that existing job titles and grades are kept current, as part of the budget process each Department Head/supervisor will give the employee a copy of their current job description and ask the employees to review the description for accuracy. The employees will return the job descriptions April 2009 -3-

Exhibit 5 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 PFP Policy April 13, 2009 within one (1) week of receiving them from the Department Head/supervisor and discuss the changes (if any) with the Department Head/supervisor. The Human Resources Department will review the submitted information within one (1) week from receiving it from the Department Head for appropriateness and use the Position Analysis Factor Guide to reevaluate the position. When reclassification is initiated, all incumbents holding the same job title should complete a JAQ. A desk audit usually at the job site would then be conducted with the individual being considered for reclassification or with a representative number of people if the reclassification request affects a number of people with the same title. Key questions concerning the job should be answered to assist in determining the proper level within the overall pay and classification system. The analysis of all the information is then compared to the current position description for the various classifications’ levels and weighted, using the same quantitative point-factor rating criteria used to establish the level of all positions in the City pay plan. The Human Resources Department will notify the Department Head and City Manager of the outcome of the review and recommendations. The employee shall be informed of the outcome by the Department Head. Proposed reclassifications will be included in the budget proposal of the City Manager. 3. Hiring, promoting and re-grading an employee to a new or open position will be done in accordance with established procedures outlined in the Employee Handbook. 4. Establishing the hiring salary or salary increase associated with a promotion or re-grading will be derived as follows: a. Employees will be placed within the approved salary range at the entry level. On occasion for highly skilled, technical, or managerial positions, it would be necessary to hire above the minimum rate in the range, but not above the market rate mid-point. In these cases, consideration will be given to the applicant/employee’s education, equivalent experience, related experience and past performance. Recognizing that the current salary ranges are based on a 20-year period between the entry salary and maximum salary the individual may be placed within the salary range using the following guidelines: (1) The employee will be given credit for equivalent experience year for year; (2) Credit for related experience will be ½ year for year; (3) Year for year equivalent experience credit will be given for college experience beyond the minimum required where a related Master’s or related Bachelor’s Degree has been obtained. A recommendation to hire above the minimum rate in the range should be documented by the supervisor, reviewed and endorsed by the Human Resources Director and approved by the City Manager. April 2009 -4-

Exhibit 5 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 PFP Policy April 13, 2009 VI. Personnel Performance Evaluation Appeal Process MAG Rec. #20, page 6-4 of MAG Phase 2 report Employees dissatisfied with performance evaluations are entitled to dispute the evaluation through the following appeal process. 1. Employees may request an appeal of the evaluation within seven (7) days of receiving the evaluation. 2. The appeal must be filed with the employee’s immediate supervisor, in writing, stating the reason(s) for the dispute. The contents of the appeal request must include the specific categories being appealed, the rating sought, and the justification for the change. The immediate supervisor’s decision will be rendered to the employee, in writing, within seven (7) days. 3. If an employee is dissatisfied with the immediate supervisor’s decision, then the appeal will be forwarded within seven (7) days to the next level of supervision for that division along with a copy to the Human Resources Director. 4. If the employee is still dissatisfied with the decision, the process will continue through each level of supervision up to the City Manager or the Mayor and Council depending on the reporting relationship. City Manager and Council Appointee Department Heads shall have final decision on employees within their departments. Mayor and Council shall hear any appeals by the City Manager or Council Appointed Department Heads. Any appeal going as far as the City Manager, Council Appointed Department Heads, or Mayor and Council will be first submitted to the Human Resources Director. VIII. Instructions for Using the Pay-for-Performance Evaluation Detailed instructions are located on Public Docs in the Pay-for-Performance folder. IX. Evaluator Training All evaluators will receive detailed training in setting S.M.A.R.T. goals and objectives, preparing for and giving Pay-for-Performance evaluations, using the Pay-for-Performance Worksheet and completing the Position Analysis Factor Guide prior to implementation of this new system. Ongoing and refresher training will take place as needed but not less than two (2) times each fiscal year, however never less then once. Failure to attend the training will result in no salary increase awarded. Training will be mandatory, unless excused by the City Manager. MAG Rec. #1, page 2-4 of MAG Phase 2 report and Training will include the following subjects: introduction of policy, purpose, guidelines, components of policy, evaluation, appeal process, S.M.A.R.T. goals and April 2009 -5-

Exhibit 5 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 PFP Policy April 13, 2009 objectives, JAQ scoring system and plan administration. Each topic is to be addressed as it relates to the employee as an evaluator. X. Employee Training Employee Rec. #7 (Exhibit 2) All employees will be extended an invitation to attend annual training of the Pay for Performance system. Subjects to be discussed are as followings: introduction of policy, purpose, guidelines, components of policy, evaluation, appeal process, S.M.A.R.T. goals and objectives, JAQ scoring system and plan administration. Each topic is to be addressed as it relates to the employee. XI. Weights for Each Position Each non-bargaining position was evaluated and weights were assigned that determined the degree of responsibility and control it contained versus recurring or scheduled tasks as identified in the position description. For example, if a position was determined to have fairly low responsibilities and required the same duties on a recurring basis, the core competencies weight will be greater than the planned goals and unplanned assignment results weight. Conversely, a department director’s position would receive the highest weight for planned goals and unplanned assignment results and the lowest weight for core competencies since the position has a much higher level of autonomy and responsibilities. April 2009 -6-

Exhibit 5 Management Advisory Group (MAG) Phase 2 PFP Policy April 13, 2009 Appendix A P.F.P. Salary Calculation Worksheet (Adopted by City Council ________________) Instructions: Percentage of increase is determined based on the midpoint of the labor grade for the position in which the employee occupies. Fluctuation from the mid-point is based upon the employee’s overall Pay for Performance score. Any salary increase granted to an employee whose salary is above the maximum of the labor range shall receive a one-time lump sum payment that does not roll into the employee’s base salary. MAG Rec. #21, page 6-5 of MAG Phase 2 report The city reserves the right not to award any pay increase for employee’s whose salary is over the maximum of the range. OVERALL SCORE MAG Rec. #11 and 12, page 5-4 and 5-6 of MAG Phase 2 report FROM TO ADJUSTMENT For example: 10 19 0% 20 29 2% of mid-point 30 35 3% of mid-point (Market research recommended movement) 36 41 4% of mid-point 42 50 5% of mid-point April 2009 -7-

REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE PFP EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF DOVER FEBRUARY 13, 2009 PART TWO OF TWO: PAY FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP, INC. Virginia/DC Area Headquarters Tallahassee Regional Office 4205Dale Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Woodbridge, Virginia 22193 Phone: 850.386.2711 Phone: 703.590.7250 Fax: 850.386.7180 Fax: 703.590.0366 www.maginc.info

MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP, INC. HUMAN RESOURCES CONSULTING SERVICES February 13, 2009 Members of City Council c/o City Manager Tony DePrima City of Dover 710 William Street Dover, DE 19904 Dear Council, Management Advisory Group, Inc. (MAG) is pleased to present this Phase II report for the Review and Evaluation of the PFP Evaluation System to the City of Dover (City), in reference to the City’s RFP # R8006-JW-09/21/2007. This initial report is labeled as Part Two of Two for the project. It focuses on the elements that were agreed to in revisions to the original work plan, including the review of the performance evaluation aspect of the project. Part One focused on the classification and compensation elements. This report reflects input from the City Council, department heads, and employees during a series of meetings conducted on-site. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or require clarification on any aspect of this report (703) 590-7250 and by facsimile at (703) 590-0366. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City. Sincerely, Donald C. Long, Ph.D. Executive Vice President Management Advisory Group, Inc. 4207 Dale Boulevard Woodbridge, Virginia 22193 Phone: 703.590.7250 The City of Dover Page 1 of 1

THE CITY OF DOVER REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE PFP EVALUATION SYSTEM PHASE II TABLE OF CONTENTS Transmittal Letter Table of Contents Section 1.0 – Goals and Objectives of the Review ............................................. Page 1-1 Section 2.0 – Current Pay for Performance (PFP) System ................................. Page 2-1 Section 3.0 – Summary of Employee Views on the PFP System........................ Page 3-1 Section 4.0 – City Council Evaluations ............................................................... Page 4-1 Section 5.0 – PFP Scoring and Calculations ...................................................... Page 5-1 Section 6.0 – Recommendations on Related PFP Issues................................... Page 6-1 Section 7.0 – Implementation Table of Recommendations................................. Page 7-1 Appendix 1 – PFP Description, Instructions, and Forms.................................. Appendix 1 Appendix 2 – Employee Views on PFP Questions .......................................... Appendix 2 Appendix 3 – Council Appointed Positions Form ............................................. Appendix 3 Appendix 4 – PFP Calculation Worksheets ..................................................... Appendix 4 Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

SECTION 1.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES This section identifies the goals and objectives for the review of the Pay for Performance System. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

City of Dover PFP Report 1.0 Goals and Objectives Project Understanding The City of Dover (City) has sought a review of its total compensation as it relates to the City’s Pay for Performance Evaluation System. The proposed services have been conducted during two major time frames, including prior to October 2008 and after October 2008. The Phase I report was provided to the City Council September 29, 2008. This enclosed report focuses on Phase II issues related to performance evaluation. Work Plan: Phase II In this report, the following questions are relevant and reviewed:
Are performance evaluations and advancement goals being met?
Are the “Quality Control” systems working?
Are “below market” employees advancing to “at market” at the expected rate?
Has the system reduced or eliminated the number of employees above the maximum and prevented employees from advancing above the maximum?
Is the appeal process working?
Have there been a high number of appeals?
Do appellants feel that they have been treated fairly?
Are we properly training evaluators?
Are we following the training guidelines?
Do evaluators feel as though they are being properly trained?
Is the system working to retain quality employees or are we losing them to competitors?
Are the new recruits staying with the city?
Are we getting results based performance due to rewarding better performance? Are employees more goal oriented under this system of evaluation? Are employees more motivated to perform better under this system? Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 1-1

SECTION 2.0 CURRENT PFP SYSTEM This section describes the major elements of the current Pay for Performance System, and includes some key recommendations. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

City of Dover PFP Report 2.0 Current Pay for Performance System Review of Major Elements of the Pay for Performance (PFP) System The City has established four (4) major elements that constitute the current Pay for Performance System. They include: ¾ Performance Based Pay Policy for Non-Bargaining Employees (April 2005); ¾ Instructions for the Performance Review Cycle (supporting documentation); ¾ Pay for Performance Evaluation Form for Non-Council Appointed Positions; ¾ Pay for Performance Evaluation Form for Council Appointed Positions. The actual descriptions of these elements for the Pay for Performance System are included in Appendix I. The form for Council appointed positions is included for reference in Appendix II. The system devised and used by the City is quite comprehensive, documented, and detailed. It is a more detailed and involved system than most municipal employers utilize. In the public sector, there is a broad mix of systems and programs used. Agencies often go through cycles of use and non-use of performance evaluation. The application and implementation of a performance evaluation system is a function of the management and leadership of the governmental organization. If the practice is embraced by the leadership, it is put in place. If it is not viewed as a viable mechanism for evaluating, documenting, and determining compensation adjustments, the default is that all employees receive the same level of adjustments. Performance evaluation is a complex undertaking, which is why some agencies take the easy road and do not bother with implementing a performance evaluation program. The City of Dover has chosen to meet the challenge directly, by not only implementing a comprehensive and well documented system, but also seeking an evaluation of its relevance, appropriateness, and implementation. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 2-1

City of Dover PFP Report Performance Based Pay Policy for Non-Bargaining Employees (April 2005) The Performance Based Pay Policy document provides the background, guidelines, definitions, procedures, and appeal process for the Pay for Performance System. It indicates that the purpose of the program is to provide equitable compensation based on performance for all non-bargaining positions when considered in relation to each other. The goal is to reward excellence in core competencies and to obtain positive results. This general purpose applies to the entire compensation system. Part III of the City’s policy document focuses on Performance Evaluation and Advancement. The tone of the evaluation program is established when it states that performance evaluations must be completed (annually) before any consideration can be given to an increase in compensation. Further, no supervisor may receive an adjustment until subordinate evaluations are completed. This is a critical rule that appears to have been upheld to ensure the integrity of the system. The potential increases that are available to employees are a function of their score and their current compensation relative to the market rate or market point. The calculation is based on a percentage presented in the budget. This percentage is then multiplied by the incumbent’s base salary. If an employee is below the market rate for his or her pay grade, the adjustment would typically be larger than an employee whose current compensation is above the market rate. This approach is based on the theory that the market rate is provided to a fully competent incumbent. The rate of compensation growth is accelerated in the early stages of incumbency to move to the market rate faster. The compensation growth is slowed down after the employee has entered the market range of pay, and is further slowed when the salary is above market. The potential adjustments under this approach are established in a Salary Calculation Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 2-2

City of Dover PFP Report Worksheet which are the result of the actual scoring and where the employee’s salary is in relation to the market point. The Salary Calculation Worksheet does not appear to be fully understood at all levels of the organization and is not fully embraced at all levels. It is somewhat complex, has changed from year to year, and based on budgetary decisions may not be fully integrated with the City’s stated policy of a normal progression framework to the market point of the range. Its basis (use of market rate in combination with score) is not unique, but can be achieved through a simpler technique recommended in Section 5.0 of this report. Part IV of the City’s Performance Based Policy outlines a quality control mechanism that includes a review by the Human Resources Department to ensure that the goals and objectives of individual evaluation plans are consistent with the City’s Strategic Organizational Plan, and that SMART goals are established. Human Resources is also charged with reviewing the evaluators for unusual patterns of scoring, or incomplete or unrelated comments. The policy indicates an expectation that scoring will fall into a somewhat “normalized” pattern. While normalized is not defined in the City’s policy, this typically means a bell curve pattern, in which most scores will be in the mid range, while some people will score low and some will score at the higher levels. The Human Resources Department is to provide feedback to evaluators and department heads to justify inequities or patterns, and if necessary, correct the problem. Some discussion of this “quality control” approach will be made in Section 5.0 of this report, and recommendations made to ensure an appropriate organization wide quality control mechanism is in place. Part VI of the City’s Performance Based Pay Policy describes the appeal process. The appeal of an evaluation is directed up the chain of command, which is a standard Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 2-3

City of Dover PFP Report approach for an appeal. There appear to be very few appeals made, which is discussed more fully in Section 6.0. Part IX of the City’s Performance Based Pay Policy describes the requirement for training of evaluators in all aspects of the program. This is required two (2) times per year. In practice, in recent years, this type of training has been provided once each year, so the practice does not match the policy in this instance. Training on the elements of the system once per year is standard and sufficient for most agencies. It is noted that not all evaluators are actually attending the “required” training. The policy should also be adjusted to put “teeth” in the training program. If evaluators do not attend the required training, they would not be able to receive any adjustment to their own salary level for which they may be eligible. Council Members also have responsibility for evaluating five (5) positions that are “direct reports” to the Council. As a matter of fairness to the evaluated employees, Council Members should also attend the annual training program. If a Council Member does not have time to attend the training, he/she should consider recusing him or her self from the evaluation process. Recommendation # 1: Change the policy on training in the PFP System to match the practice, by requiring training for supervisors once per year. If training is not attended, deny any salary increase for which the supervisor may be eligible. Instructions for the Performance Review Cycle (supporting documentation) The instructions for the performance review cycle are comprehensive. The impact of not getting evaluations done in a timely manner is clearly placed on the Department Head. If not done in a timely manner, their own potential increase will be delayed by the same number of days the evaluation is late. The instructions (second paragraph of the instructions) indicate that “sufficient time” must be given to enable the Human Resources Director to complete a review of the scoring, but that time is not fully defined. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 2-4

City of Dover PFP Report Recommendation #2: Establish a more precise time frame and accountability within the set of Instructions so as to clearly define the time allotted for each step in the performance review cycle. Quarterly Reviews Language is included in the Instructions about documenting work behaviors throughout the year. This is an excellent policy and should be monitored. Requiring a “quarterly review” is also a fine policy, and requires substantial attention to ensure their completion on a regular and routine basis. The set of instructions strongly encourages that quarterly reviews be completed. Under the current City policy, quarterly reviews do not have to be submitted to HR for review. The advantage of conducting quarterly reviews is to keep employees abreast of their performance and focused on their goals. There is no record of the quarterly reviews being accomplished and, in practice, some departments do quarterly reviews and some don’t. Recommendation #3: Written quarterly reviews should be done by Department Heads on a schedule outlined in the City’s policy, and documented in the evaluation by entering into the PFP software. Self Evaluations A “self-evaluation” component is described in the Instructions, in which an employee is not required to complete one unless requested by the supervisor. The intent is to have a basis for the formal discussion of the evaluation at a later point. In practice, some department heads ask employees to complete self evaluations and some do not. This is an uneven practice within the departments. The policy should dictate one way or the other as to whether self-evaluations shall be done. While supervisors may focus on one set of behaviors, they may find that employees have identified achievements that have been overlooked. Recommendation #4: All evaluated employees should conduct self evaluations, with the purpose of then comparing them at the formal performance evaluation meeting. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 2-5

City of Dover PFP Report Pay for Performance Evaluation Form for Non-Council Appointed Positions This evaluation form includes definitions of performance ratings, including Outstanding, Commendable, Good, Acceptable with Some Improvement Needed, and Unsatisfactory. For the most part, the definitions are appropriate and reflect standard definitions within a typical performance evaluation format. However, there is a disconnect in the labeling and definitions for the “Good” level and the “Acceptable with Some Improvement Needed” level. The definition for “Good” is more consistent with the label of “Meets Expectations” as defined in most systems. It is the third level down in the relative ranking of performance, and in a five (5) rank level system, is typically assigned the label of “Meets Expectations”. That is essentially what the definition in the form describes. The incumbent is to meet the expected standards of the job. The definition describes what the City should expect of an incumbent receiving compensation for work. Recommendation #5: Change the current performance form label of “Good” to “Meets Expectations” on the evaluation form. For the level that is labeled “Acceptable with Some Improvement Needed”, the label itself is deceiving. The definition describes performance that is clearly not acceptable within a work environment. Labeling the described performance as “Acceptable” creates an impression that “not consistently demonstrating the required knowledge, skills, abilities, and/or effort for the position” is indeed acceptable (when in fact, it is not, or should not be). Recommendation #6: Change the current performance form label of “Acceptable with Some Improvements Needed” to “Improvement Needed”. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 2-6

City of Dover PFP Report MAG further offers an observation and recommendation in reference to the label assigned to level 5 of the evaluation system, that of “Outstanding”. The PFP policy itself has indicated that the evaluation system is a relative ranking system. In other words, how well (or not) employees are performing relative to others in the organization is a key component. Under the current labeling system, it is feasible that all employees could obtain “Outstanding” scores. In a relative ranking system, that scenario is not feasible. In order to match the reality of scoring with the defined policy and policy intent, an adjustment to the label for the highest score is needed to re-emphasize the relative ranking intent of the policy and the program. Recommendation #7: Change the current performance label of “Outstanding” to “Results Rarely Achieved by Others”. The evaluation form also includes both planned goals and unplanned assignments. This demonstrates the flexibility of the system as it recognizes that goals and objectives may change during the course of a performance cycle. The prioritization aspect of the format is commendable as well. A unique dimension to the establishment of goals and objectives is that of requiring goals to meet the SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistically High, Target Date). The evaluator and the employee have some parameters guiding the development of goals and objectives. The inclusion of a professional development plan for the coming year is also a desirable component of a performance evaluation program. It demonstrates that the evaluation is not only looking backward on previous performance, but is also forward looking as well. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 2-7

SECTION 3.0 EMPLOYEE VIEWS ON THE PFP SYSTEM This section summarizes the views expressed by supervisors and employees attending training sessions in October 2008 and December 2008. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

City of Dover PFP Report 3.0 Summary of Employee Views on the PFP System Employee Meetings Conducted Meetings were held with groups of employees and supervisors in both October and December 2008. In the October meetings, attendees were asked to identify strengths, weaknesses, and possible solutions to the Pay for Performance System. The extensive comments are summarized here, with duplicative comments removed. Strengths of the PFP System Noted by Employees and Supervisors ¾ Online capability (use year after year, saves time, better than paper); ¾ The PFP system is standardized across departments; ¾ The system requires establishing goals; ¾ Separates achievers from underachievers – rewards achievers; ¾ There is potential for a larger increase; ¾ The system documents poor performers; ¾ Documents actions/goals and work behaviors; ¾ Keeps you focused and provides constant feedback; ¾ Defines expectations and keeps employees on track; ¾ There is an incentive to excel in performance; ¾ Employee morale is positively affected, generally; ¾ There is better retention of skilled staff; ¾ Goals are clear and they are good in theory/principle; ¾ There is opportunity for employee development; ¾ Goal setting – goals are flexible; ¾ Enhances communication between supervisor and employee; ¾ The use of self evaluation is good; ¾ Increases productivity; ¾ Grading based upon performance rather than random views; ¾ Dialogue between supervisor and manager; ¾ There is a continuity for goals if done properly; ¾ The system benefits “under market” employees; ¾ Credit can be given for unplanned assignments; ¾ The system allows you to set goals for next year. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 3-1

City of Dover PFP Report Weaknesses of the PFP System Noted by Employees and Supervisors ¾ There is a lack of understanding of the PFP system by Council; ¾ Scores can be subjective; ¾ Goals and objectives can be redundant and don’t flow down in timely manner; ¾ A lot of approval levels can take months; ¾ No incentive once you get to “above market”; ¾ “Below market” concept can sometimes reward poor performers ¾ Supervisors not always qualified to evaluate the employee; ¾ Weak training on standards/standardizing on grading; ¾ The required paperwork can be cumbersome and process time consuming; ¾ The scoring system is sometimes seen as unfair and not understandable; ¾ Calculation manipulation and influence from outside of the department; ¾ Distrust of HR – denial of high scores, lack of communication; ¾ Matrix should be consistent each year – no changing at budget; ¾ Can be abandoned without notice – Council can eliminate after goals are met; ¾ Substantial sacrifice does NOT equal pay for performance; ¾ Union employees getting better raises & step increases than PFP; ¾ Matrix is misleading; ¾ Brings down morale and incentive is minimal; ¾ No credit is given for experience that one brings to the job; ¾ Weighted scoring; ¾ Unfair to long-time employees, less of an increase; ¾ Core Competency is too wordy/repetitive; ¾ Performance goals take precedence over core competencies; ¾ It takes too long to complete each evaluation; ¾ Evaluations are all due at the same time; ¾ There is a tendency to trend toward the middle; ¾ Union employees get better raises/step increases than supervisors; ¾ Budget drives the compensation – not enough difference in actual pay between an “average” and an “outstanding”; ¾ “Down-sizing” of actual performance ratings to meet budget constraints; ¾ Process takes too much time from evaluation to results; Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 3-2

City of Dover PFP Report Solutions for the PFP System Noted by Employees and Supervisors ¾ Goals should have more weight than objectives; ¾ Unplanned goals should have more weight than scheduled goals; ¾ Hold off goals during the probationary period; ¾ Final approval should be with Dept. Head – not HR; ¾ More support/understanding of the program by Council; ¾ Accountability, follow up on findings; ¾ Training should be a “on-going” process; ¾ Proper/consistent training for supervisors doing evaluations; ¾ Need less reliance on HR to monitor the system; ¾ Need more time to talk with supervisors about goals; ¾ Funding – have to fully fund the system; ¾ Stop hiring people at “below market”; ¾ Eliminate decreased “increases” for above market; ¾ Simplify evaluations; ¾ Council needs to identify goals earlier to incorporate in evaluations; ¾ Define Council appointee goals in March; ¾ Define department head goals in April; ¾ Develop weight system for goals; ¾ Delete below & above market; ¾ Better define priorities/weight goals; ¾ Don’t require explanations for 3’s + 4’s; ¾ Place more authority with Dept. Heads; ¾ Evaluate PFP software for user-friendliness; ¾ Simplify core competencies; ¾ Add flat cost-of-living increase and make PFP an additional %; ¾ Base evaluation dates on anniversary date; ¾ Supervisor raises should not be less then union (good evaluations); ¾ Allow more 5’s; ¾ Develop a plan to get people to market; ¾ Limit goals. While not all views are reflected in the series of recommendations, they have all been considered. For example, broad comments on the need for supervisory training on the PFP system are reflected in the recommendations, the role of HR has been further defined and clarified, and the system scoring is simplified. Some suggestions may be based on incomplete information or rumor (final scoring approval is with DH, not HR), or may not be feasible at this time (such as evaluations on anniversary dates, which is a major change). Employees may be assured that all suggestions were reviewed in the context of other needed system adjustments. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 3-3

City of Dover PFP Report Employee Views Regarding Specific PFP Related Questions In addition to the strengths, weaknesses and possible solutions identified by employees in October 2008, a series of meetings was conducted in December 2008 to focus on specific questions. All of the responses are listed in Appendix 2. They are summarized here for the reader. 1. You have been a provided a copy of the PFP policy and instructions. Do you believe the evaluations are being completed in accordance with the Policy and Instructions? If not, what specific policies are not being met? Of the 74 responses to whether the evaluations are being completed in accordance with the Policy and Instructions, 57 people answered “Yes”, while six (6) people answered “No”. Of the remaining respondents, seven (7) people indicated that they had not been evaluated yet as newer employees, while four (4) responses were non-committal. 2. Does your supervisor collaborate with you on developing your goals for the coming year? Do those goals use the SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistically High, Target Date)? Of the 80 responses to this question, 65 people answered “Yes”, while 12 people answered “No”. Three (3) responses were unclear or non-committal. Some of the “No” responses were due to the view that the goals are either very clear or pre-determined, so no collaboration was needed. 3. Do you feel that establishing goals is relevant to your job (if not, could you identify your job title)? Of the 78 responses to this question, 64 people answered “Yes”, while five (5) people answered “No”. Nine (9) of the responses were non-committal or unclear. 4. Is the “core competency” of the evaluation relevant to your job? Of the 78 responses to whether the core competencies are relevant to the employee’s job, 65 people answered “Yes”, while two (2) people answered “No”. Eleven respondents were unsure, non-committal, or indicated “somewhat”. 5. Do you feel your job is weighted appropriately between goals and competency? Of the 72 responses to this question, 41 answered “Yes”, while 19 people answered “No”. Twelve respondents were unclear or uncertain. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 3-4

City of Dover PFP Report 6. Do you believe the scoring system is fair? Of the 76 responses to this question, 38 people answered “Yes”, while 22 people answered “No”. Sixteen (16) respondents were either unclear, non- committal, or had not been evaluated yet and had no comment. 7. Is high performance rewarded? Of the 71 responses to this question, only 13 people answered “Yes”, while 43 people answered “No”. Fifteen (15) people were not certain or were non- committal. 8. Are evaluations done consistently across departments? Of the 74 responses, 14 people answered “Yes”, while 14 people answered “No”. Most respondents (46) did not know or could not answer the question. 9. Supervisors: do you feel as though you have enough knowledge of how to use the performance evaluation system? Of the 53 responses to this question, 34 people answered “Yes”, while only three (3) people answered “No”. Sixteen (16) people answered n/a, and other non-supervisory people simply did not answer. 10. Does the system help retain high performing employees? Of the 73 responses to this question, 15 people answered “Yes”, while 39 people answered “No”. Nineteen (19) people answered unsure or don’t know. 11. Are employees generally more goal oriented under this system of evaluation? Why or why not? Of the 77 responses to this question, 44 people answered “Yes, while 17 people answered “No”. Sixteen (16) people were unsure or non committal. 12. Once the evaluation is complete, does the employee receive timely feedback on the results? Why or why not? Of the 70 responses to this question, 41 people answered “Yes”, while 15 people answered “No”. Fourteen (14) people were unsure or non committal. 13. Have you ever appealed an evaluation? If yes, did you feel it was handled adequately? Why or why not? (was it fair?) Of the 73 responses to this question, six (6) people indicated that they have appealed an evaluation, while 62 respondents indicated they had not ever made an appeal. Five (5) people indicated no response or unrelated information. Of the six (6) people who appealed, two (2) indicated a satisfactory response, while three (3) were not satisfied. One (1) appellant did not discuss the outcome. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 3-5

City of Dover PFP Report 14. What single action would you recommend to improve the system? As one might imagine, with open ended responses from 75 employees, the answers are highly variable. The responses varied from “get rid of it” to “don’t change anything”. Some recommendations noted several times included: ¾ ensure Council commitment to the program (since it was suspended recently, this has been a matter of concern); ¾ make the evaluations more department specific; ¾ reduce the role of Human Resources to that of process monitoring rather than reviewing or changing scores (although no documented evidence was presented); ¾ shorten the format, particularly with the redundancies in the core competencies; ¾ require more meetings between supervisors and employees; ¾ make the matrix consistent and do not manipulate; ¾ let department heads decide increases; ¾ let supervisors decide increases; The more frequent employee recommendations focused on making the PFP simpler, limiting the role of HR, shortening the format, and ensuring Council commitment and acceptance. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 3-6

SECTION 4.0 CITY COUNCIL EVALUATIONS This section focuses on the evaluation form and process used by City Council to evaluate five (5) Council appointed positions. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

City of Dover PFP Report 4.0 City Council Evaluations Council Appointed Evaluations There are five (5) positions within the City that report directly to the City Council. These include the City Manager, City Clerk, Planning Director, Finance Director, and Tax Assessor. For these positions, the City Council as a whole is responsible for providing performance evaluations. Evaluation Process In terms of process, these incumbents conduct self evaluations (using the prescribed form in Appendix 2). Then, the evaluations are given to Council Members for review and consideration. The Council will meet as a group, without the employee present, to discuss the performance issues and concerns. Following this step, the employee meets with the full Council to discuss the performance evaluation document and views of Council Members. The City Clerk creates a score sheet upon which each Council Member’s scores are recorded for the goals and the core competencies. The City Clerk does the calculations, which includes dropping off the high score and the low score for each item evaluated. The Council Members review the form and scores and then the City Clerk enters the scores into the PFP electronic system. The evaluation is then printed out. The City Manager provides input into the evaluations for the Planner and the Tax Assessor positions. Format and Form In terms of the form used, it is essentially the same format as that which is used for non-Council appointed positions. The major difference is in the sub-elements of the core competencies. The items within the core competencies are specific to the higher level nature of the positions and their work relationship to Council. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 4-1

City of Dover PFP Report Planned Goals and Unplanned Assignments This section of the forms for Council appointees appears to be well done and focused. The tight definition of the planned goals and/or unplanned assignments lends itself to a somewhat objective review and assessment. Core Competency Elements This section of the form is not well described and as a result is difficult, if not impossible to result in an objective evaluation of the incumbent. While MAG has selected (for the sake of brevity) to use a single review form as an example, (see Section 5.0) it should be noted that this area of the form was also voiced as a concern by other non- bargaining employees. The “elements” portion of the Core Competency section was described as “overlapping”, “redundant” and “overly complex”. These comments appear to be supported by MAG’s review of this area of the evaluation form (See Section 5.0) Performance Rating Definitions The performance rating definitions used for Council appointed positions is the same as that which is used for non-Council appointed positions. The evaluation in Section 2.0 includes a review of the definitions, and MAG has the same recommendation for the Council appointed positions. Observations There is an inherent challenge for Council Members to evaluate the work performance of the management employees reporting directly to the whole Council. A primary concern is that Council Members are not typically in daily contact with the reporting employee to the same extent as a supervisor is with an employee. The interactions and therefore the observations are infrequent and often occur during periods of stress (public meetings or other times when significant issues are at stake). To compound the challenge, some Council Members, due to their time commitments and also the committees in which they are most active, may or may not have sufficient Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 4-2

City of Dover PFP Report opportunity to observe and evaluate the work performance of the employee. As an added point, if Council Members are not able to attend the training provided annually on the PFP system, they may not be familiar with the forms and nuances of the system to enable full and appropriate consideration of all facets of the work being completed. It was noted in Section 2.0 that Council Members should attend the annual training to ensure their full understanding of this (complex) system of evaluation. While the process established for the evaluation of Council appointed positions has some good elements (requiring initial self evaluations, meeting first without the employee, using core competencies and a scoring system similar to other employees, dropping off the high and low scores), a slight adjustment in process may be helpful. Committee Structure for Council Direct Reports The City should consider establishing a three (3) or four (4) person committee structure for evaluations that would assign Council Members with the most familiarity with the work performance of the employee to that particular committee. For example, the Council Members who work most closely on financial affairs and budgetary matters would be assigned to a four (4) person committee to initially evaluate the performance of the Finance Director. The Council Members who work most closely on planning and community development issues and committees would take the lead on the evaluation of the Planning Director position. MAG further suggests that the Council President be assigned to each of these committees. As an example, for the Planning Director position, the committee might include the following committee chairs: ¾ Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement ¾ Safety Advisory and Transportation ¾ Planning Commission Chair ¾ Council President Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 4-3

City of Dover PFP Report For the Tax Assessor position, the committee might include the following committee chairs: ¾ Legislative, Finance, and Administration ¾ Chair of the Tax Appeal Board ¾ Council President For the Finance Director, the committee might include the following committee chairs: ¾ Legislative, Finance, and Administration ¾ Chair of the Pension Committee ¾ Utility Committee ¾ Council President For the City Clerk, the committee might include the following committee chairs: ¾ Legislative, Finance, and Administration ¾ Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement ¾ Utility Committee ¾ Council President For the City Manager, while it is ultimately the entire Council that is responsible for this evaluation, the full Council should rely upon the approach established in the contract for the City Manager. It indicates that the review would be completed by five (5) Council Members, including the Council President and the chairs of the standing committees. The five (5) person committee should therefore include: ¾ Legislative, Finance, and Administration ¾ Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement ¾ Safety Advisory and Transportation ¾ Utility Committee ¾ Council President This committee would conduct the initial meeting with the City Manager to review the self evaluation and provide a recommendation to the full Council. This action could make the full evaluation meeting with Council a more productive and focused meeting. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 4-4

City of Dover PFP Report This process adjustment would allow Council Members to discuss performance in greater detail and have a more meaningful set of interactions with the employee. The outcome of the initial evaluation would then be presented to the whole Council as a recommendation, with the whole Council then confirming the recommendation or making any adjustments deemed appropriate. Recommendation #8: Create a committee structure to evaluate Council appointed positions that would make recommendations on compensation adjustments for the evaluated employee. Recommendation #9: Apply the changes noted in Section 5.0 to the development of Core Competencies for the Council positions. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 4-5

SECTION 5.0 PFP SCORING AND CALCULATIONS This section reviews the current scoring system and the current method of calculating possible increases. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

City of Dover PFP Report 5.0 PFP Scores, Calculations and Forms Policy for Performance Pay The following is excerpted from the “Performance Based Pay Policy for Non-Bargaining Employees”: I. Purpose “The City of Dover Performance Based Pay Policy is intended to provide equitable compensation based on performance for all exempt and non-exempt positions when considered in relation to each other and to general pay ranges for similar employment elsewhere. This policy rewards excellence in core competencies, as well as the ability to get results. “This will allow the City to maintain an effective, responsible and loyal work force, and allow us to recruit and retain high quality employees. The Policy establishes pay ranges and maintains an effective ongoing pay system for appropriate compensation recognizing the importance of results based performance.” The current Pay for Performance narrative recognizes that the pay structure is established on a twenty (20) year career plan base. Additionally, the movement for acceptable performance for employees who are “below market’ is based on reaching the market point in seven (7) years. The policy is to have an employee who starts at the entry level and who receives a “GOOD” evaluation to move to the market level within seven (7) years. Current Pay for Performance Scoring and Salary Adjustments The current pay plan structure is 57% from the entry level of the range to the top of the range, with approximately 21% between the entry level and the market point and 30% between the market point and the maximum of the range (percentages compound to yield a range width of 57%). Given this spread, a “Good” evaluation, or as MAG recommends, “Meets Expectations”, would be an annual adjustment of approximately Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-1

City of Dover PFP Report 3%. If the policy to move employees to the maximum of the range was recognized in the performance management plan, a “Good’ or “Meets Expectation” raise from the market to the maximum of the range would be an annual adjustment of approximately 2.3%. In contrast, the City’s calculation for “Good” for the 2008 – 2009 matrix (which is currently suspended) would be 4.25% (for below market) and 2.5% for above market. An employee whose salary is at market would receive 3.25%. The Row of “30-35” would represent “Good” or ‘Meets Expectations” and should equate to 7 years to market and 20 years to maximum (or an additional 13 years of service). MAG has reproduced the City’s 2008-2009 Performance Score Table and has also added a “years to…” calculation based on the current pay structure and the percentages shown in the table. This calculation shows the “years to market” and “years to maximum” that would be required to reach either level in the pay plan, based on the percentages noted in the table. PFP Score ADJUSTMENTS From To Employee YRS Employee YRS Employee Employee YRS Above Max MAX Above Mkt Max at Mkt YRS Below Mkt MKT From To 0 19 0.00% N/A 0.00% N/A 0.00% N/A 0.00% N/A 20 29 0.00% N/A 2.00% 15.0 2.50% N/A 3.00% 7.0 30 35 2.00% N/A 2.50% 12.0 3.25% N/A 4.25% 4.9 36 41 2.75% N/A 3.25% 9.2 4.00% N/A 6.00% 3.5 42 50 3.50% N/A 4.00% 7.5 4.75% N/A 6.50% 3.2 The current approach and assigned percentages result in an uneven movement toward the market and maximum of the assigned pay range. In all cases, the row that equates to the score of 30 – 35 (“Good” or “Meets Expectations”) is more aggressive than the City’s presumptive policy. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-2

City of Dover PFP Report Plan Simplification The recent and current economy dictates a responsible and reasonable approach towards performance adjustments. Employees are seeking a more straightforward and understandable system of adjustments. The current approach is often viewed as being manipulated and so complex that it is difficult to explain and follow. There is certainly a mixed view of the concepts (and resulting adjustments) by employees who are either “below market” or “above market”. While there is a defensible philosophy upon which the current system is structured and implemented, MAG recommends a methodology that employs some elements of that underlying philosophy, yet includes an easy to comprehend approach. There are several elements of the system, and they are presented one at a time below. 10 Years to Midpoint The first construct or basis of the system is that of the number of years upon which the structure is based. MAG recommends that the system be based on a “normal progression” with 10 years to the arithmetic midpoint. This is similar to the current program except that it would mean eliminating the concepts of “below market” and “above market”. Instead of using “below market”, the recommended approach would advance an employee who “meets expectations” to the midpoint in 10 years. Recommendation #10: Base the movement within the pay grade on the concept of a “normal progression” career plan for employees who “Meet Expectations” to reach midpoint in 10 years. Use of Midpoint to Calculate Adjustments Historically, following the completion of a performance evaluation, the City has provided percentage adjustments to the employee’s current salary. The results of this practice, in combination with the application of the “below market” and “above market” concepts, have been a source of concern within the workforce as being inequitable. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-3

City of Dover PFP Report To simplify the adjustments, and based on equity within the compensation plan structure, MAG recommends using the midpoint of the assigned pay grade as the basis of potential adjustments. A position title in a particular grade has an identified market range value. Any performance evaluation adjustments would be based on the arithmetic midpoint of the pay range within which the position title is assigned. For example: ¾ Computer Operator and GIS Technician are both grade 113. Each has the same midpoint value ($36,989). If a Computer Operator produces a higher performance evaluation score than the GIS Technician, then the Computer Operator would receive a higher adjustment. If the performance evaluation score translates into a 4% adjustment for the Computer Operator, the dollar value of the increase would be $1,479.56. If the GIS Technician’s performance evaluation translates into a 3% adjustment, the dollar value of the increase would be $1,109.67. If their scores are in the same range, they would both receive the same dollar value of adjustment. This practice would have a somewhat similar effect of moving the person with a salary lower than the midpoint at a faster pace, but would also enable experienced incumbents to advance towards the maximum level of the pay range. This concept is simpler than the current approach. It would not matter whether the incumbent was at the lower end of the pay range or in the upper portion of the pay range. The increase is influenced more by performance than by relative position within the pay range. Recommendation #11: Use the arithmetic midpoint of the position’s assigned pay grade as the basis for calculating potential performance adjustments. Calculating Performance Adjustments Performance adjustments would be based on the midpoint of the assigned pay range of the position held by the employee. The potential annual performance adjustments on a percentage basis would have to be identified each year, as a function of several factors, including any structural adjustment made, actual performance score, and the available dollars. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-4

City of Dover PFP Report The City has historically made structural adjustments to the entire compensation structure to recognize increased costs of living and to ensure the City’s overall competitiveness within the general market. The City should continue its practice of using labor market indicators to make structural adjustments. In order to provide performance evaluation adjustments based on the midpoint, the arithmetic midpoints would have to be calculated each year. The percentage adjustments would range from zero (0) percent for employees scoring fewer than 20 points in their evaluation, which is current policy. The percentage of midpoint adjustments for the other four (4) categories of PFP scoring would have to be determined each year based on any structural adjustment made, actual performance score, and the available dollars. For example, if the City makes a 3% structural adjustment to the pay structure, the following set of adjustments would occur: PFP Score Rating Adjustment as a percentage of midpoint 0 – 19 Unsatisfactory 0 20 – 29 Needs Improvement 2% 30 – 35 Meets Expectations 3% 36 – 41 Commendable 4% Results Rarely 42 - 50 5% Achieved by Others One can readily see that it will take an employee a longer period of time to reach higher salary levels if their performance evaluation scores are lower than the employee who regularly achieves higher annual evaluation scores. The likelihood is that employees will score at varying levels during their employment with the City. The Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-5

City of Dover PFP Report movement is based on performance. Consistent evaluations at the “Needs Improvement” level should not occur, as it would bring into question the viability of continued employment. Recommendation #12: Establish a simple and straightforward program for potential adjustments of zero (0) through an annually determined percentage amount for all other categories of evaluation. Normalizing Scores by Human Resources The City has attempted to compensate for lenient or harsh raters by having the HR Department review the scores and make recommendations back to the Departments with respect to the perceived “rating tendency” of various supervisors. A statistical formula should be developed and employed that can convert the scores into rater profiles and allow for comparison of rater profiles. While using a statistical model will help to reduce the perception that the HR department is substituting its judgment for that of the supervisor, it will not be entirely without pitfalls. The reality is that the group being evaluated is already, in the nomenclature of statistics, “pre-selected”. In other words, these incumbents have already been promoted from lower level positions or have been hired in at a higher level. As a result, one would not expect that their evaluation scores would reproduce a balanced bell curve. The following chart provides an example of how rating patterns of various managers can be compared by graphing on a standard bell curve chart. CHART OF COMPARATIVE RATING PATTERNS Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-6

City of Dover PFP Report It can be observed, from the figure above, that Manager 'A', compared to Manager 'B', has the tendency to rate most of his subordinates at 7 to 8 points on a Performance rating scale of 1 to 10. Manager 'C', on the other hand, is highly conservative and awards given to the best of his subordinates are in the range of 5 to 6 points. Thus, an average performer with Manager 'B' gets equated with the Best employee reporting to Manager 'C' and with a low average subordinate of Manager 'A'. The City has attempted to adjust for rater tendency by making compensating recommendations. However, this process is not always perceived by employees, whose scores may have been adjusted, as being objective and equitable. Many organizations choose to ignore the problems created by rater tendency. The City of Dover is commended for recognizing and attempting to address this very valid concern. Without any adjustment, those employees who are assigned to a harsh rater may leave the City and those assigned to a lenient rater may be the managers of tomorrow. Suppose there are 10 appraisers in the City, each with a high degree of variability in their performance appraisal scoring. The process of balancing this variability is called “normalization”. The Normalization Process An overview of the process is comprised of the following steps: 9 'Statistical Mean' of organizational rating pattern of all the Managers (i.e., Appraisers) at the same level, across various departments, is computed. Let this Mean be 'M'. 9 Statistical Mean for each of the Appraisers at the same level (i.e., for all the 10 Managers in the example given above) is computed. Each Manager should have done the Appraisal for 40 to 50 employees (may be over the last 5 years). Let this Mean be 'Mi ' (i = 1 to 10). 9 A correction Factor (CF) for each of these Managers (Appraisers) is then computed = Mi / M. Its value, for example, will be 1.0 if the rating pattern of a Manager is the same as the statistical Mean for all the Managers. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-7

City of Dover PFP Report 9 Performance Score of each individual employee is divided by CF for his/her Manager to compute its normalized value. This normalized score is utilized for all management decisions. There are other factors that should be considered in a normalization process. Data can be compiled from previous year’s evaluations to have enough data from each of the raters to insure statistical validity. While it is possible to manually manage a normalization process, MAG would suggest that the City consider automating this approach. This should address both the concerns that the Human Resources Department is “changing ratings” and also address the criticism that it takes a very long time for the Human Resources Department to complete the review process. Critical to the success of any normalization process is the timely completion of the evaluations. It is imperative that all evaluation scores are available for normalization comparison at the same time. Recommendation #13: Enhance the reliability of the normalization process by adopting a statistically recognized process for comparing performance appraisal scores between and among raters. (The process briefly outlined above is not all inclusive. Automate the process of normalization of the performance scores either by contracting with MAG to develop the program or by assigning it to in-house IT staff. Recommendation #14: Enhance the current policy of holding up any salary adjustment for a supervisor who has not completed his or her evaluation to holding up the entire City-wide processing of adjustments until all supervisors have completed and submitted their evaluations to the Human Resources Department. MAG would also recommend that within three days following the date for submission, that the Human Resources Department shall prepare and publish on the City’s intranet a list of those supervisors/employees who have not submitted a completed evaluation. (This would not apply to Council appointees, but would apply to all employees in the department of a Council appointee.) Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-8

City of Dover PFP Report Planned Goals and Unplanned Assignments The scoring is based on a five point Likert Scale and is easy to understand and to use. The “weighting” approach makes common sense and is also easy to use and understand. Recommendation: No change Core Competency Elements Employee criticisms of the core competency elements included “overlapping”, “redundant”, “too wordy” and “repetitive”. These criticisms appear to be valid. While it is very difficult to develop a performance appraisal system, it is relative easy to be critical. MAG’s comments with respect to the Core Competency Elements are made with the greatest respect for the difficulty of developing the system and fully recognizing that conducting a critical review is easier than creating a system. The Core Competency Elements include the following Standards: ¾ Accountability/Leadership/Work Management ¾ Communication and Customer Service ¾ Job Knowledge ¾ Planning, Organization, Problem Solving and Decision Making ¾ Relationships within the Organization For Supervisors an Additional Standard: ¾ Supervisory Skills In the sample reviewed, each Standard had from four (4) to 11 “elements”, with the average being more than seven (7). In the sample reviewed, the elements were not always related to the standard and in some cases, there were multiple versions of the same element, just worded slightly differently. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-9

City of Dover PFP Report When the same or very similar elements occur, if the employee is considered to be “outstanding” the first time the “element” appears, they would then appear to continue to be “outstanding”. Conversely, if an employee was not scored high on the element the first time it appeared, when a slightly different version of the same element appeared again, it would overweight that negative rating. Additionally, in the same sample reviewed by MAG, the elements listed for “Job Knowledge” were all examples of what should have been considered the accepted qualification for performance of the job. The elements listed were “required” knowledge for the job, but the employee was rated “Outstanding” on “Job Knowledge” with no particular examples of why the rating would have been so high. The “justification” for the “Outstanding” evaluation would have supported “Meets Expectations”, but would not, for the level of the employee being reviewed, have been support for the highest level of evaluation. Each of the Standards should be defined as to what they are attempting to measure and should be directly related to the job. Each Standard should have no more than three or four elements. The elements should be clear and distinct. The elements should be directly related to the defined standard and should be clear examples of the desired behaviors purporting to be measured. The following is an example of a Standard and related elements: Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-10

City of Dover PFP Report Sample Table Showing Standards and Elements Teamwork Works with others either in formal teams or ad hoc groups to accomplish tasks or provide services effectively and efficiently. Cooperation (Examples may Include): • Works well with other Agency groups and organizations for the success of the group or organization. • Works with others in developing and implementing solutions to problems. • Assists others to meet objectives. • Maintains effective working relationships with team members. • Actively participates in team efforts. Leadership (Examples may Include): • Leads or follows, as necessary, within the team. • Takes initiative to arbitrate and resolve disagreements if they arise. Commitment to Team Effort (Examples may Include): • Shares information willingly. • Shares credit, recognition, and visibility with others. • Supports and promotes team decisions and initiatives. In the example provided, the Standard is “Teamwork”. There are three Elements, “Cooperation”, “Leadership” and “Commitment”. The statements under each element are to provide examples. The examples are not meant to be all inclusive, but rather suggestive of acceptable behavior or outcomes. Each of the Standards should be defined. The definition should be a simple one and easy to understand. Then, the elements should be edited to two or three, and examples provided that would suggest a successful measure or outcome for the element. If successful measures or outcomes cannot be identified, then the element may not be appropriate and should be removed or replaced. The definitions of the standards should be appropriate to the level of the work being reviewed. While the standard, “Communication”, might be appropriate for all employees being reviewed, the definition may differ and the elements for this standard would vary considerably based on the level of the incumbent in the organization. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-11

City of Dover PFP Report The City has done an excellent job of developing a form that is simple to use and easy to understand. The changes that would improve the system are meant to be positive suggestions and not to be overwhelming. Most of the information needed to strengthen the content and format of the forms is readily available. The basic framework already exists. The re-work could be fairly quickly accomplished and then reviewed by the incumbent and supervisor for finalization. Recommendation #15: Review the Core Competencies and Elements to add definitions for the Core Competencies and to streamline the elements statements. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 5-12

SECTION 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON RELATED PFP ISSUES This section provides recommendations on key issues raised during the study process. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

City of Dover PFP Report 6.0 Recommendations on Related PFP Issues 6.1 Adherence to Policy For the non-bargaining positions for which performance evaluations are to be completed, City staff has completed the evaluations as required. This may seem to be an obvious point, however, there are agencies with evaluation programs that simply do not follow through, or are so late in conducting evaluations so that they are rendered meaningless. Dover has been highly responsible in implementing the PFP evaluation programs and evaluations. One of the reasons is that the program has “teeth”, in that supervisors are not able to receive a potential adjustment if they do not complete their evaluations in a timely manner. The pressure to perform evaluations, and in a timely way, has been institutionalized within the organization. With respect to the implementation of the system, MAG finds: ¾ evaluations are being completed annually as policy requires; ¾ market salary ranges are being adopted every year; ¾ Council is informed as to market changes and salary calculations; ¾ supervisors are not receiving increases until subordinate reviews are completed; ¾ evaluations include goals and objectives (current and anticipated); ¾ adjustments are determined by performance scores; ¾ percentage adjustments have been consistent with stated policy, as employees move towards the market rate with higher increases than an employee above the market rate with the same performance score (Section 5.0 establishes a new method of calculating increases); ¾ Human Resources has taken actions for quality control by reviewing the consistency of SMART goals with the City’s Strategic Plan and looking for unusual scoring patterns; ¾ Evaluator training has been provided once per year, which is viewed internally as sufficient (34 of 37 responses by supervisors indicated that they have enough knowledge of how to use the PFP system. Recommendation #16: Continue to complete performance evaluations annually as dictated by current policy. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 6-1

City of Dover PFP Report 6.2 SMART Goals, Departmental Goals, and Quarterly Reviews Generally, clear goals are being established meeting the SMART criteria. This is one of the more difficult aspects of developing a meaningful performance evaluation program. Some departments appear to be better able to accomplish this than others, either due to the nature of the work or the extent of effort applied to the task. Some work is more easily measurable and therefore able to be quantitatively described and evaluated. Because jobs change over time, establishing goals meeting the SMART criteria requires regular and routine monitoring. It also appears that the departments make an effort to incorporate the departmental goals and objectives into the goals and objectives of the individual employees. This is not an easy task and is easier done by some departments than others. Some jobs don’t always have full control over their goals and objectives, and departmental goals change as well. Incorporating departmental goals into individual employee evaluations requires constant monitoring. The set of instructions for the PFP policy requires that supervisors meet quarterly with the employee to discuss progress toward the goals and objectives established. In practice, this is not performed evenly throughout the City departments. It is a reasonable requirement that forces managers and supervisors to maintain currency in performance goals. When employees were asked whether evaluations are done consistently across departments, of 74 responses, 14 people answered “Yes”, while 14 people answered “No”. Most respondents (46) did not know or could not answer the question. Section 5.0 indicates that the core competencies need to be reviewed and edited for duplication and redundancies. Recommendation #17: Require managers and supervisors to document the quarterly review of goals and objectives with their employees. If the quarterly reviews are not documented, the supervisor would be denied (not simply deferred) a possible increase at the time of their own evaluation. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 6-2

City of Dover PFP Report 6.3 Administration and Control A system of performance evaluation requires monitoring to ensure that the base policy requirements are met, that all needed actions are occurring in a timely manner, and that employees have a perception of fairness regarding the outcomes. As required in the PFP Policy, Human Resources has taken actions for quality control by reviewing the consistency of SMART goals with the City’s Strategic Plan and looking for unusual scoring patterns. Employees noted that the monitoring role has expanded into departmental areas of responsibility and affected scores. As noted above, the Quarterly Review cycle must play a critical role in ensuring that the goals are appropriate for each position. Developing or re-writing the goals and then conducting Quarterly Reviews is primarily a departmental matter, and should not be left to the Human Resources Department to re-write goals or second guess their relevance. Human Resources should review the goals for consistency with the City’s Strategic Plan, remind Department Heads to conduct the Quarterly Reviews, and also determine if unusual scoring patterns do indeed exist. MAG has recommended that the City utilize a recognized statistical process of comparing and normalizing scores to overcome rater tendency. This is constructive and meaningful feedback to the Departments and raters. Recommendation #18: Make the accurate implementation of the PFP system a key element of the core competency for Supervision. If a supervisor does not implement the PFP system, Supervision should be downgraded substantially. This should be reflected in the Supervisory Core Competency. Recommendation #19: Include monitoring goals for the Human Resources Director to ensure consistency with the City’s Strategic Plan, reminding departments of the need for Quarterly Reviews, setting up annual training on the program, and identifying unusual scoring patterns to the City Manager, the Department Head and the rater. This should be reflected in the Supervisory Core Competency. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 6-3

City of Dover PFP Report 6.4 Appeal Process Part VI of the City’s PFP Policy describes a process under which employees may appeal their performance evaluation. Questions regarding the appeals process were asked of employees attending sessions in December 2008. Of the 72 responses, six (6) people indicated that they have appealed an evaluation, while 62 respondents indicated they had not ever made an appeal. Of the six (6) people who appealed, two (2) indicated a satisfactory response, while three (3) were not satisfied. One (1) appellant did not discuss the outcome. Five (5) people had no response. One may conclude that the appeal process is available to all employees and very few have made an appeal over the last several years. This is a relatively low number of appeals for 80 plus people through four (4) years of experience. While three (3) of the six (6) appellants were not satisfied with the outcome of their appeal, there has been no indication that the appellants have not been treated fairly. Recommendation #20: Continue the current process regarding appeals. 6.5 Retention Two of the issues for consideration included whether new recruits are staying with the City and whether the system is working to retain quality employees. Excellent retention is a function of many factors, including the ability of incumbents to advance in pay. The City has made both range structure adjustments and performance adjustments over the last four (4) years. The structure adjustments have been competitive with other agencies. The performance adjustments move “under market” incumbents at a faster rate than “over market” incumbents. The workforce appears to be stabilized, although the implementation of a positive performance evaluation system may not be the primary reason for this stabilization. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 6-4

City of Dover PFP Report In a related question, two-thirds of employees responding to a question as to whether the system helps retain high performing employees answered “No”. Many people indicated that performance evaluation will not make a substantial difference in whether an incumbent stays or not. Rather, the internal motivation has greater impact on the interest and willingness of an incumbent to remain. 6.6 Employees Above the Maximum One issue raised was whether the system reduced or eliminated the number of employees above the maximum and prevented employees from advancing above the maximum. In the database established during the classification and compensation review, only one (1) person was identified as being over the maximum. The incumbent received a demotion and the salary was not reduced below the maximum of the reassigned position. One may conclude that the systems (both classification/compensation and performance) have minimized the number of employees above the maximum and have prevented employees from advancing above the maximum. The City’s proposed 2008-2009 PFP matrix included a performance based adjustment of salary for employees whose salary exceeded the maximum of the range. Organizations are divided on providing increases to employees above the range maximum. Recommendation #21: If the City adopts a policy of providing a performance based monetary recognition, the City should consider providing any amount above the maximum of the range in a one-time lump-sum payment that does not roll into the base salary. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 6-5

City of Dover PFP Report 6.7 Results, Goals, and Motivation Several additional issues were raised in reference to the performance evaluation system, including whether the City is getting results based performance due to rewarding better performance; whether employees are more goal oriented under this system of evaluation; and, whether employees are more motivated to perform better under this system. In response to a question as to whether employees are generally more goal oriented under this system of evaluation, of the 77 responses, 44 people answered “Yes”, while 17 people answered “No”. Two (2) people were unsure or non committal. Two-thirds of employees who answered the question do believe that they are more goal oriented under the system of evaluation. Employees appear to conclude that establishing goals is relevant to their jobs. Of the 71 responses to a question on the matter, 64 people answered “Yes”, while five (5) people answered “No”. Nine (9) of the responses were non-committal or unclear. As to whether employees are more motivated to perform under the PFP system, Department Heads noted that motivation is more internally generated, and that the potential increases, while sought after, are not the primary drivers of motivation. This is not the message from general employees. The fact that there is less reward potential to employees who are “above market” than employees who are “below market”, was noted as a concern by some. The City’s compensation philosophy of moving employees quickly who are “under market” is consistent with compensation strategies in the general market which reflects a steeper learning curve early in their career. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 6-6

City of Dover PFP Report 6.8 “Below Market” Advancements An issue raised is whether “below market” employees are advancing to “at market” at the expected rate. Non-bargaining employees, using MAG’s software system, all appear to be advancing through the ranges at an acceptable pace. Using a “7 years to market and 20 years to max” calculation, MAG did not identify any significant deviation that required immediate administrative redress. Any differences in rate of progression can be largely explained by reviewing differences in rewards earned under the pay for performance system. 6.9 Scoring System Differentiation Another noted issue is whether the scoring system is working to differentiate better performance. The scoring system is differentiating between and among employees’ salaries in the various pay ranges, and, given the general enthusiasm for the system, one may conclude that pay for performance must be working. While many employees offered comments and criticisms of the system designed to improve it, only two dissenting voices were heard that would scrap the whole system. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009 6-7

SECTION 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS This section includes a table that identifies each recommendation, responsible party, time frame, impact, and potential cost for each of the study’s recommendations. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

Dover, Delaware 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE REVIEW OF PAY FOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM Estimated Projected Savings or Rec. # Action Step Responsibility Completion Impact (Costs) Change the PFP policy to require City Manager and Ongoing No adverse impact, as Staff time saved. 1 training for supervisors once per HR Director recommendation reflects year. If training is not attended, current practice. deny any salary increase for which the supervisor may be eligible. Establish a more precise time City Manager and February Clear expectations and None. 2 frame within the set of Instructions HR Director 2009 accountability. so as to clearly define the time allotted for each step in the performance review cycle. Written quarterly reviews should Department Ongoing; Improved monitoring and Staff time to complete 3 be done by Department Heads, Heads Quarterly annual evaluations. quarterly reviews. and documented in the evaluation by entering into the PFP software. All employees Annually, at Improved annual Staff time to complete 4 All evaluated employees should under the evaluation time. evaluations and self evaluations. conduct self evaluations, with the evaluation system. supervisory/employee purpose of then comparing them at interactions. the formal performance evaluation meeting. Page 6-1

Dover, Delaware CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE REVIEW OF PAY FOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM Estimated Projected Savings or Rec. # Action Step Responsibility Completion Impact (Costs) Change the current performance City Manager and February Accuracy in performance None. 5 form label of “Good” to “Meets HR Director 2009 labeling. Expectations” on the evaluation form. Change the current performance City Manager and February Accuracy in performance None. 6 form label of “Acceptable with HR Director 2009 labeling. Some Improvements Needed” to “Improvement Needed” on the evaluation form. Change the current performance City Manager and February Accuracy in performance None. 7 label of “Outstanding” to “Results HR Director 2009 labeling. Rarely Achieved by Others”. Create a committee structure to City Council March Improved annual None. 8 evaluate Council appointed 2009 evaluations for Council positions that would make appointed positions. recommendations on compensation adjustments for the evaluated employee. Page 6-2

Dover, Delaware CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE REVIEW OF PAY FOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM Estimated Projected Savings or Rec. # Action Step Responsibility Completion Impact (Costs) Apply the changes noted in City Manager March Improved annual None. 9 Section 5.0 to the development of 2009 evaluations. Core Competencies for the Council positions. City Manager; April Less cost than current PFP Unknown. 10 Base the movement within the pay Council Approval; 2009 for July matrix and consistency grade on the concept of a “normal Human Resources evaluations. from year to year progression” career plan for employees who “Meet Expectations” to reach midpoint in 10 years. Use the arithmetic midpoint of the City Manager; April Equity and system Unknown. 11 position’s assigned pay grade as Council Approval; 2009 for July simplification the basis for calculating potential Human Resources evaluations. performance adjustments. Establish a simple and City Manager; April Equity and system Unknown. 12 straightforward program for Council Approval; 2009 for July simplification potential adjustments of zero (0) Human Resources evaluations. through an annually determined percentage amount, based on budget availability. Page 6-3

Dover, Delaware CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE REVIEW OF PAY FOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM Estimated Projected Savings or Rec. # Action Step Responsibility Completion Impact (Costs) City Manager; Can commence Establish reliable process Unknown. 13 Automate the statistical Council Approval; upon approval of comparing rater profiles; normalization of rater IT or MAG support more equitable evaluation comparisons. across raters/departments. Can commence Essential to rater profiling None. 14 Hold up salary adjustments until all City Manager upon approval. process that all evaluations evaluations are complete; publish are available at the same stragglers on the City’s intranet. time. Streamline and enhance Core Human Resources Dependent on More valid and reliable Unknown. 15 Competency and Element with assistance in-house or Format and basis for statements. contractual assessment. assistance. 16 Continue to complete performance City Council; Ongoing Documentation and Staff time and evaluations annually as dictated by City Manager monitoring of performance. preparation of materials. current policy. Page 6-4

Dover, Delaware CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE REVIEW OF PAY FOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM Estimated Projected Savings or Rec. # Action Step Responsibility Completion Impact (Costs) 17 Require quarterly review of all City Council; March 2009 Enhance communications Additional time for employees being evaluated. City Manager and establish consistency supervisors not currently across the system. doing this. 18 Add responsible participation in the Human Resources March 2009 Further strengthen the None. PFP as a Supervisory Core system – greater Competency. accountability Add monitoring and reminder goals City Manager; As soon as Add accountability to the Unknown 19 to the Core Competency of the HR Human Resources model is rater profiling and Director. Director complete normalization process Continue the current process for Human Resources No change No change No change 20 appeals. Any pay out for performance over City Manager; Adopt new Do not compound base Long-term cost control 21 the maximum of the range is a City Council policy salary above the maximum lump-sum one-time payout that of the range. does not roll into the base salary. Page 6-5

APPENDIX 1 PFP Description, Instructions, and Forms: This appendix includes the current Performance Based Pay Policy dated April 19, 2005. Also included are the instructions that supervisors are to follow during the performance review cycle, and a sample form used to evaluate Non-Council Appointed Positions. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

City of Dover Performance Based Pay Policy For Non-Bargaining Employees April 19, 2005 I. Purpose The City of Dover Performance Based Pay Policy is intended to provide equitable compensation based on performance for all exempt and non-exempt positions when considered in relation to each other and to general pay ranges for similar employment elsewhere. This policy rewards excellence in core competencies, as well as the ability to get results. This will allow the City to maintain an effective, responsible and loyal work force, and allow us to recruit and retain high quality employees. The Policy establishes pay ranges and maintains an effective ongoing pay system for appropriate compensation recognizing the importance of results-based performance. II. Pay Plan Maintenance New market-based salary ranges shall be adopted every year after consideration of a market survey that considers both external and internal movement in market salaries. The ranges shall establish an entry-level rate, market rate and a maximum rate. The City Manager will forward the results of the market survey and his recommendations to Council for consideration during the annual budget process. The increases in salary ranges shall not be considered as cost of living increases, but shall serve to keep ranges up to date so that employees’ performance is properly evaluated within the context of where their salary lies within the market place. III. Performance Evaluations and Advancement Guidelines Performance evaluations must be completed annually, prior to any consideration for an increase in pay. No supervisor shall receive an increase in pay until subordinate evaluations are complete. The evaluation will include measurement of the results of predetermined goals and objectives, unplanned assignment results and core competencies. The evaluations shall give goals and objectives for the coming evaluation year. The amount of the proposed pay increase will be determined by the overall Performance Score as applied to the Pay-for-Performance Worksheet in accordance with the table found on the worksheet. The Pay-for-Performance Worksheet shall be approved by City Council with the annual budget. Appendix A is the model Pay-for-Performance Worksheet; the areas where percentage increases will be placed have been left blank. -1-

In general, the percentage increase for employees scoring between 21 and 30 evaluation points whose current salary is within the market range (within the 2nd third of their salary range) will receive an increase equivalent to market increases as determined by the annual market survey. In general, employees with lower scores will receive lower percentage increases, and those with higher scores will receive higher percentage increases. To advance employees to the market rate, employees who are compensated at levels below market will receive increases that are higher than those who are at and above the market with similar performance scores. In some cases with low scores or salaries above maximum, there may be no increases. While it is the intent of the City to keep salaries competitive within the market place, the City Council reserves the right to set percentage increases based on what it determines the City can afford regardless of changes in the market. IV. Evaluation Quality Control Systems To ensure quality control, the Human Resources Department will review the latest employee performance evaluations in August of each year to ensure that they have clear and concise goals and objectives with expected results that are aligned with the City’s Strategic Organizational Plan. Goals are to be S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistically High, Target Date). The comments supporting the results achieved must be specific to the goals and/or competencies and not just a repetition of the goal or objective. Achievement or lack thereof of results and progression in core competencies are to be outlined in these comments. The Human Resources Department will also review the evaluators for unusual patterns such as consistently high/low patterns of scoring, as well as incomplete or unrelated comments to support the performance points associated with the goals and objectives. While there are no formal quotas, there is an expectation that scoring will naturally fall into a normalized pattern, particularly as evaluations are considered over time and in groups. Feedback will be given to evaluators and their department heads to give them the opportunity to justify the perceived inequities or patterns and if necessary correct the problem(s). V. Procedures for New Job Titles/Grades and Re-grading and Retitling Existing Positions To establish new job titles, grade new positions, or re-grade and re-title existing positions where job responsibilities have changed, the following procedure must be followed: -2-

1. Department heads must submit a proposed job description along with a completed Position Analysis Factor (PAF) Guide to the Human Resources Department with an explanation outlining the reasons for the new title, re- grade or new position. The Human Resources Department will enter the Position Analysis into the Job Analysis Qualification (JAQ) software to determine the salary grade. The Human Resources Director shall compile all of the new positions, new titles and new grades and forward them to the City Manager for consideration within the annual budget. 2. To ensure that existing job titles and grades are kept current, as part of the budget process each Department Head/supervisor will give the employee a copy of their current job description and ask the employees to review the description for accuracy. The employees will return the job descriptions within one (1) week of receiving them from the Department Head/supervisor and discuss the changes (if any) with the Department Head/supervisor. The Human Resources Department will review the submitted information within one (1) week from receiving it from the Department Head for appropriateness and use the Position Analysis Factor Guide to reevaluate the position. When reclassification is initiated, all incumbents holding the same job title should complete a JAQ. A desk audit usually at the job site would then be conducted with the individual being considered for reclassification or with a representative number of people if the reclassification request affects a number of people with the same title. Key questions concerning the job should be answered to assist in determining the proper level within the overall pay and classification system. The analysis of all the information is then compared to the current position description for the various classifications’ levels and weighted, using the same quantitative point-factor rating criteria used to establish the level of all positions in the City pay plan. The Human Resources Department will notify the Department Head and City Manager of the outcome of the review and recommendations. The employee shall be informed of the outcome by the Department Head. Proposed reclassifications will be included in the budget proposal of the City Manager. 3. Hiring, promoting and re-grading an employee to a new or open position will be done in accordance with established procedures outlined in the Employee Handbook. -3-

4. Establishing the hiring salary or salary increase associated with a promotion or re-grading will be derived as follows: a. Employees will be placed within the approved salary range at the entry level. On occasion for highly skilled, technical, or managerial positions, it would be necessary to hire above the minimum rate in the range, but not above the market rate. In these cases, consideration will be given to the applicant/employee’s education, equivalent experience, related experience and past performance. Recognizing that the current salary ranges are based on a 20-year period between the entry salary and maximum salary the individual may be placed within the salary range using the following guidelines: (1) The employee will be given credit for equivalent experience year for year; (2) Credit for related experience will be ½ year for year; (3) Year for year equivalent experience credit will be given for college experience beyond the minimum required where a related Master’s or related Bachelor’s Degree has been obtained. A recommendation to hire above the minimum rate in the range should be documented by the supervisor, reviewed and endorsed by the Human Resources Director and approved by the City Manager. VI. Personnel Evaluation Appeal Process Employees dissatisfied with evaluations are entitled to dispute the evaluation through the following appeal process. 1. Employees may request an appeal of the evaluation within seven (7) days of receiving the evaluation. 2. The appeal must be filed with the employee’s immediate supervisor, in writing, stating the reason(s) for the dispute. The contents of the appeal request must include the specific categories being appealed, the rating sought, and the justification for the change. The immediate supervisor’s decision will be rendered to the employee, in writing, within seven (7) days. 3. If an employee is dissatisfied with the immediate supervisor’s decision, then the appeal will be forwarded within seven (7) days to the next level of supervision for that division along with a copy to the Human Resources Director. 4. If the employee is still dissatisfied with the decision, the process will continue through each level of supervision up to the City Manager or the Mayor and Council depending on the reporting relationship. City Manager and Council Appointee Department Heads shall have final decision on employees within their departments. Mayor and Council shall hear any appeals by the City Manager or Council Appointed Department Heads. Any appeal going as far as the City Manager, Council Appointed Department Heads, or Mayor and Council will be first submitted to the Human Resources Director. -4-

VIII. Instructions for Using the Pay-for-Performance Evaluation Detailed instructions are located on Public Docs in the Pay-for-Performance folder. IX. Evaluator Training All evaluators will receive detailed training in setting S.M.A.R.T. goals and objectives, preparing for and giving Pay-for-Performance evaluations, using the Pay-for-Performance Worksheet and completing the Position Analysis Factor Guide prior to implementation of this new system. Ongoing and refresher training will take place as needed but not less than two (2) times each fiscal year. Training will be mandatory and will include the following subjects: introduction of policy, purpose, guidelines, components of policy, evaluation, appeal process, S.M.A.R.T. goals and objectives, JAQ scoring system and plan administration. Appendix A P.F.P. Salary Calculation Worksheet (Adopted by City Council _______________) Instructions: The total PFP adjustment is calculated by carrying forward the Overall Score from page 1 and finding the range in the two left-hand columns of the following matrix in which the score falls. The PFP adjustment is found in the right-hand column. OVERALL SCORE ADJUSTMENT Employee Employee Employee Employee FROM TO Below At Above Above Market(1) Market(1) Market(1) Maximum 0 19 20 29 30 35 36 41 42 50 (1) Below Market = first third of salary range; At Market = second third of salary range; Above Market = top third of salary range. -5-

Instructions for the Performance Review Cycle Please realize that annual reviews are due to the Human Resources Director by May 31. A supervisor shall arrange to meet with the employee to discuss the employee’s evaluation no later than June 25 of each year. Failure to provide a completed evaluation for an employee in a timely manner, no later then July 1, will cause the effective date of the Department Head’s pay-for-performance pay increase, if one was granted, to be extended by the number of days the evaluation was not received if the failure to submit a completed evaluation harms the evaluated employee. For example, if pay-for-performance increases are effective July 1 and the Department Head submits the evaluation on July 5 (five days late), the Department Head’s pay-for-performance increase would be granted, if he or she was entitled to one, on July 5. The employee’s increase, if one was granted, would be retroactive to July 1. Sufficient time for review by the Human Resources Director shall be considered when determining a timely manner. For example, submission of the evaluation on June 30 may not provide ample time for the Director to review and return to the evaluator. This may cause harm to the evaluated employee. Before conducting a performance evaluation, a supervisor must give an employee a reasonable time to demonstrate performance. THROUGHOUT THE YEAR Observe and document the employee’s performance and give immediate feedback whenever possible. Documentation at this point can be somewhat informal, but try to keep a record of what the employee does, both good and bad. This record will be very helpful in completing the remarks/example section of the evaluation as well as ensuring the employee is not being evaluated on a short timeframe. Ask the employee for input about their performance during the year. This is important because the performance review should be based on two-way communication, so that it is not merely a “report card.” The employee’s input can be any combination of the following: A draft performance appraisal prepared by the employee A list of accomplishments and significant events An informal discussion between the employee and supervisor It is important to keep in mind that the supervisor should collaborate and seek advice from others in evaluating the employee throughout the year. Other supervisors, employees, customers, division and department heads may be able to provide important insights. QUARTERLY REVIEW (generally October, December and March) Meet informally with the employee to discuss progress toward the goals and objectives as outlined in Part 3 of the Pay-for-Performance Evaluation for the previous year. Update, add or remove goals as necessary since the last review. Unexpected and unplanned assignments may arise. As new goals are added, it is important to evaluate the employee’s capacity to accomplish -1-

already established goals. By keeping goals and objectives current, the necessity of documenting unplanned assignments in “Part 1” during the Annual Review will be minimized. Indicate any additional comments by the supervisor or employee in the supervisor’s log/journal. PROBATIONARY REVIEW All new employees shall receive a formal probationary review for no less than six months of active service and no more than seven months of active service. Goals are to be established for the new employee to complete during the probationary period. See next section, Annual Review, for additional information. ANNUAL REVIEW Employees hired between July 1 and November 30 of each year shall receive a probationary review for no less than six months of active service and no more than seven months of active service in addition to an annual review in May. On July 1, the employee would be eligible for a pay-for-performance increase. Employees hired between December 1 and June 30 shall not receive an annual review in May; however, they would receive a probationary review upon completion of six months of active service and no more than seven months of active service. Employees would be eligible for a pay-for-performance increase at their one-year employment anniversary. These employees would then receive an annual review in May of the following year and be eligible for a pay-for- performance increase on July 1 of the following year. The pay-for-performance evaluation instructions are available on Public Docs in the Pay for Performance folder while the evaluation is available on the City’s intranet, http://intranet/projects/pfpfb/. For assistance, please contact the Human Resources Department. It is important to inform the employee that his or her yearly evaluation is due. The supervisor shall set a meeting date and time with the employee to review the evaluation. This will ensure that everyone has ample time to prepare for the evaluation. It is important to keep in mind that the supervisor should collaborate and seek advice from others in developing the evaluation. Other supervisors, employees, customers, division and department heads may be able to provide important insights into the evaluation process. SELF EVALUATION A self-evaluation is not required by the employee unless requested by the supervisor. A self- evaluation is strongly encouraged since it is an opportunity for an employee to inform the evaluating supervisor of surrounding circumstances or extraordinary efforts that were involved in the completion of the goals. Evaluators will be specifically seeking the employee’s synopsis of the results achieved on his or her planned and unplanned goals. The employee shall be given a copy of a blank evaluation by his or her evaluator so that he or she may prepare a self-evaluation prior to the formal discussion of the evaluation. July 2007 -2-

The employee may also wish to indicate goals they would like to achieve in the next review period. Goals should be related to the overall vision and mission of the City as well as the employee’s department. Professional development opportunities are not considered goals and should not be noted in the goal section of the evaluation. For example, complete an Excel class. JOB DESCRIPTION Obtain the current job description for the employee’s position to be reviewed by the employee and supervisor during the annual budget process. In general this review will occur in December or January each year. The job description shall be reviewed by the employee and the supervisor individually. Reviewing the job description annually will ensure that the job description remains up to date with current job duties. All changes must be submitted to the Human Resources Director for consideration and final approval. If appropriate, the HR Director may recommend the position be re-graded. COMPLETING THE PAY FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM Page One The intranet system will automatically complete Page 1 of the evaluation. Please realize that each non-bargaining position has been assigned a weight for goals and objectives and one for core competencies. If you think that the weights need to be changed, please contact the Human Resources Director. If you need assistance, please contact the Human Resources Department. PART 1: Planned Goal and Unplanned Assignment Results This section is to include comment on the degree and qualities of the results achieved and note any extenuating circumstances affecting the results. It should also be noted how well an employee did in accomplishing the objectives and if they were completed in a timely manner. Assign performance points based upon the Performance Rating Definitions and the Key as noted in the Performance Rating tab of the Pay for Performance intranet system. The performance score shall be indicated in the Performance Rating box. Narrative information is very important in the review process; therefore, include remarks and whenever possible, specific examples. It is very important to consider the difficulty of the goals and objectives when scoring. Goals and objectives can have different degrees of difficulty. The completion of a relatively easy goal and objective should not be scored the same as completing a difficult goal and objective. An easily attainable goal that is completed should be rated “good,” a more difficult goal should be rated “commendable,” and achieving a very difficult goal should be “outstanding.” A very difficult goal or objective that may be only partially completed may score the same as an easily attainable goal that is completed. It is very important that the difficulty of the goal and objective not be gauged on the employee’s ability, but on its relative difficulty when compared to goals and objectives assigned to others. After completing the Planned Goals and Objectives section, proceed to the Major Unplanned Assignments contained in Part 1. This section should be completed in the same manner as Planned Goals and Objectives. Major unplanned assignments are assignments which either were July 2007 -3-

not included on the previous year’s evaluation or were added during the quarterly review and were not scheduled for completion throughout the fiscal year and required at least 40 hours to complete. The performance score is determined by dividing the sum of the points by the number of Planned Goals and Unplanned Assignments. The result is then rounded to the nearest tenth. This figure will be automatically calculated once the evaluation is saved. Please refer to page one of the evaluation. PART 2: Core Competency Elements Each employee shall be evaluated on all the core competencies indicated in Part 2 with the exception of categories that pertain to employees who supervise. This category is indicated. The supervisor should review the Performance Rating Definitions on page 2 of the evaluation or contained in the Performance Rating tab of the Pay for Performance intranet system prior to completing this section. Specific examples are to be provided in addition to remarks in the space provided. The examples provided for each competency on the evaluation form should be used as guidelines in developing the narrative in the remarks/example section rather than merely copied. Upon the completion of evaluating all core competencies, save the evaluation. By saving the evaluation the score will automatically be calculated. Once the weighted scores for planned goal and unplanned assignment results and core competencies have been calculated the employee’s overall score will automatically be calculated by the intranet system. This is calculated by adding the two weighted scores together. Overall Comments A detailed narrative is be included in the Overall Comments section (located at the end of Part 2, Core Competencies) of the evaluation. This section should be used for the supervisor to express any comments or concerns that were not addressed previously in the evaluation. PART 3: Major Responsibilities for Next Year List goals and objectives for the coming year that are to be evaluated during the next evaluation. Goals are to be written in the S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistically high, and Target date) format. These goals are to be discussed with the employee during the formal evaluation process and reviewed quarterly to determine the employee’s progress toward reaching them. For information regarding S.M.A.R.T., please contact the Human Resources Department. PART 4: Employee’s Professional Development Plan Establish a Development Plan listing actions that the employee can take to improve performance for the coming year. This may include suggestions for education and training, reading material, research, job shadowing, counseling and other self-improvement programs. The Development Plan should include specific actions that the employee can take to enhance performance. This July 2007 -4-

section of the evaluation affords the evaluator and the employee an opportunity to collaborate on how the employee’s performance can be improved both as an individual and as a part of a team. This section should be taken very seriously and should be considered one of the most important parts of the evaluation. Submission for Additional Approval Upon completing the evaluation, please electronically “Forward” the evaluation. This function is within the Pay for Performance intranet system. This function indicates to the next approving supervisor/department head that the evaluation has been completed and is ready for their review. The intranet system allows the evaluation to be forwarded as well as “Returned”. The proper chain of command must be followed in order for the evaluation to reach the Human Resources Director for final approval. Throughout the approval process, a supervisor may return the evaluation to the previous level. This process should be continued until the final approval is received from the Human Resources Director. The evaluation is not to be presented to the employee until it has been approved by the Human Resources Director. If the evaluation is presented to the employee before the Human Resources Director approves it, the evaluator may be subject to presenting the evaluation again to the employee. Review with the Employee Once final approval is received from the Human Resources Director, the supervisor shall meet with the employee at the time and date originally scheduled at the beginning of the evaluation process. The supervisor may provide a copy of the evaluation up to two days prior to the meeting for the employee to preview. At this time, the employee may give the supervisor a preview of the self-evaluation. During the review, the individual’s performance, strengths, and developmental needs are to be discussed. Explain the reasons for the review. For example, probationary, annual, special or for another reason. During the review, an open line of communication should be maintained. This is when the employee’s self-evaluation should be compared with the supervisor’s evaluation. The supervisor as well as the employee being evaluated should be open-minded toward comments made. After the formal review with the employee, the supervisor may need to modify the original evaluation to include information the employee presented during the review process. Signatures The employee and the supervisor must sign the evaluation once it has been reviewed together. The employee’s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the evaluation. If the employee refuses to sign a performance evaluation, the supervisor must make a notation on the evaluation to indicate that the employee refused to sign the evaluation. The employee and supervisor may attach an addendum. The evaluation shall be presented to the Department Head for review and signature. The Department Head shall then forward the evaluation to the Human Resources Director. July 2007 -5-

Once the evaluation has been finalized, make a copy of the evaluation for the employee. Once the evaluation is submitted to Human Resources, the Human Resources Director will sign the evaluation. Human Resources will then forward to the department a copy of the signature page. The employee shall be informed that the evaluation will be placed in the employee’s personnel file maintained in the Human Resources Department. Evaluations become a permanent record in the employee’s file. July 2007 -6-

APPENDIX 2 This appendix includes the documented (anonymous) views of employees and supervisors who attended workshops in October and December 2008. The views are in response to a series of questions posed to employees who are evaluated under the PFP Evaluation System. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

Consolidation of Views on the Pay for Performance System Employee Meetings Held on October 13, 2008 Strengths:  Online (use year after year, saves time, better than paper)  Standardized (across depts. + non-rep/rep + elected)  Retention Tool (state has none)  Separates Achievers from Underachievers – rewards achievers  Documents poor performers  Focuses on goal attainment  Provides incentives – potentially  Keeps you focused  Motivation  Sparks initiative  Constant feedback and defines expectations  Quantitative analysis (For HR due to scoring)  Morale  Increase productivity  Goals are clear which is good in theory/principle  Opportunity for employee development  Grading + raise linked  Enhances communication between supervisor + manager  Self evaluation good  Keeps employees on track  Grading based upon performance  Self-evaluation  Continuity for goals if done properly  Expectations are set out for you  Contingent upon doing PFP properly  Employee retention (If fair market is done for classification)  Benefits under-market employees  S.M.A.R.T. – attainable goals – eliminates goals that are not attainable  Credit for unplanned assignments  Allows for non scoring (Penalized) for not achieving a goal due to outside circumstances  Tied to pay raise  Adjustable – Unplanned/Removed goals  Standardizes evaluation + grading process  Documents work activity  Flexibility of adding goals throughout year

Weaknesses:  Goals for sake of goals  Lack of understanding by Council  Need recourse for contesting score  Some areas don’t apply to person  Goals + objectives can be redundant  “Above market” employees don’t benefit (topped out)  A lot of approval levels can take months  Supervisor qualifications to be able to evaluate the employee  Paperwork cumbersome and time consuming  Trend toward the middle  Unfair scoring system  Unobtainable scoring  Goals don’t flow down in timely manner  Calculation manipulation  W/Good employees – repetitive  Below market can sometimes reward poor performers  Matrix not consistent each year – changes at budget  Evaluations – a lot less writing for good employees, more for poor ones  Outside influences should be prohibited in evaluations  Can be abandoned without notice  Goals not realistic under daily work load  Positive for new hires and negative for veterans  Too many approval levels (supv  mgr  HR  emp)  Distrust of HR – denial of high scores, lack of communication  No clear means to contest scores  Weak training on standards/standardizing on grading  Council approved without understanding the system  Only as strong as the supervisor that is doing them  Not assigning goals during probation period  Misunderstanding of system  Union employees getting better raises & step increases than PFP  No credit for experience  Cannot count on it – Council can eliminate after goals are met  Too subjective: HR has too much control and every supervisor is different  Unfair to long-time employees, less of an increase.  Core Competency is too wordy/repetitive  Performance goals take precedence over core comp.  Due all at same time  Dept. Heads can delegate goals and not have to meet their own  Budget drives the compensation – not enough difference in actual pay between an “average” + an “outstanding”  “Down-sizing” of actual performance ratings to meet budget constraints

Solutions  Goals should have more weight than objectives  Change weighting scale  Unplanned goals should have more weight than scheduled goals  Hold off goals during probationary period  Different scoring system  Accountability, follow up on findings  Frequent feedback  Specific goals – developed by supervisor + subordinate  should be an “ongoing” process  Reduce HR – cumbersome paperwork  More time to talk with supervisors about goals  Funding – have to fully fund the system  No process for below average  Proper/consistent training for supervisors doing evaluations  Stop hiring people at “below market”  Eliminate decreased “increases” for above market  Council needs to identify goals earlier to incorporate in evaluations  Set matrix + index outside + ahead of budget process  Define council goals in March  Define dept. head goals in April  Develop weight system for goals  Delete below & above market  Better define priorities/weight goals  Don’t require explanations for 3’s + 4’s  Place more authority with Dept. Heads  Evaluate PFP software for user-friendliness  Simplify core competencies  Add flat cost-of-living increase + make PFP an additional %  Council should commit  Base evaluation dates on anniversary  Supervisor raises should not be less than union (good evaluations)  Simplify evaluations – multiple choice questions/answers then give examples. Yes/No – HR would have less to comment on  Revamp electronic form. User friendly  Periodically check goals of other departments that affect your department  Re-evaluate system  Retro Pay for last year’s evaluations  Re-evaluate Job Descriptions/Classifications  Allow more 5’s  Develop a plan to get people to market

Employee Views on the PFP System Training Sessions Conducted December 2008 1. You have been a provided a copy of the PFP policy and instructions. Do you believe the evaluations are being completed in accordance with the Policy and Instructions? If not, what specific policies are not being met? Of the 74 responses to whether the evaluations are being completed in accordance with the Policy and Instructions, 57 people answered “Yes”, while six (6) people answered “No”. Of the remaining respondents, seven (7) people indicated that they had not been evaluated yet as newer employees, while four (4) responses were non-committal. 2. Does your supervisor collaborate with you on developing your goals for the coming year? Do those goals use the SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistically High, Target Date)? Of the 80 responses to this question, 65 people answered “Yes”, while 12 people answered “No”. Three (3) responses were unclear or non-committal. Some of the “No” responses were due to the view that the goals are either very clear or pre-determined, so no collaboration was needed. 3. Do you feel that establishing goals is relevant to your job (if not, could you identify your job title)? Of the 78 responses to this question, 64 people answered “Yes”, while five (5) people answered “No”. Nine (9) of the responses were non-committal or unclear. 4. Is the “core competency” of the evaluation relevant to your job? Of the 78 responses to whether the core competencies are relevant to the employee’s job, 65 people answered “Yes”, while two (2) people answered “No”. Eleven respondents were unsure, non-committal, or indicated “somewhat”. 5. Do you feel your job is weighted appropriately between goals and competency? Of the 72 responses to this question, 41 answered “Yes”, while 19 people answered “No”. Twelve respondents were unclear or uncertain. 6. Do you believe the scoring system is fair? Of the 76 responses to this question, 38 people answered “Yes”, while 22 people answered “No”. Sixteen (16) respondents were either unclear, non- committal, or had not been evaluated yet and had no comment.

7. Is high performance rewarded? Of the 71 responses to this question, only 13 people answered “Yes”, while 43 people answered “No”. Fifteen (15) people were not certain or were non- committal. 8. Are evaluations done consistently across departments? Of the 74 responses, 14 people answered “Yes”, while 14 people answered “No”. Most respondents (46) did not know or could not answer the question. 9. Supervisors: do you feel as though you have enough knowledge of how to use the performance evaluation system? Of the 53 responses to this question, 34 people answered “Yes”, while only three (3) people answered “No”. Sixteen (16) people answered n/a, and other non-supervisory people simply did not answer. 10. Does the system help retain high performing employees? Of the 73 responses to this question, 15 people answered “Yes”, while 39 people answered “No”. Nineteen (19) people answered unsure or don’t know. 11. Are employees generally more goal oriented under this system of evaluation? Why or why not? Of the 77 responses to this question, 44 people answered “Yes, while 17 people answered “No”. Sixteen (16) people were unsure or non committal. 12. Once the evaluation is complete, does the employee receive timely feedback on the results? Why or why not? Of the 70 responses to this question, 41 people answered “Yes”, while 15 people answered “No”. Fourteen (14) people were unsure or non committal. 13. Have you ever appealed an evaluation? If yes, did you feel it was handled adequately? Why or why not? (was it fair?) Of the 73 responses to this question, six (6) people indicated that they have appealed an evaluation, while 62 respondents indicated they had not ever made an appeal. Five (5) people indicated no response or unrelated information. Of the six (6) people who appealed, two (2) indicated a satisfactory response, while three (3) were not satisfied. One (1) appellant did not discuss the outcome.

14. What single action would you recommend to improve the system? As one might imagine, with open ended responses from 75 employees, the answers are highly variable. The responses varied from “get rid of it” to “don’t change anything”. Some recommendations noted several times included:  ensure Council commitment to the program (since it was suspended recently, this has been a matter of concern);  make the evaluations more department specific;  reduce the role of Human Resources to that of process monitoring rather than reviewing or changing scores;  shorten the format, particularly with the redundancies in the core competencies;  require more meetings between supervisors and employees;  make the matrix consistent and do not manipulate;  let department heads decide increases;  let supervisors decide increases; The more frequent employee recommendations focused on making the PFP simpler, limiting the role of HR, shortening the format, and ensuring Council commitment and acceptance.

APPENDIX 3 This appendix includes a sample PFP Evaluation form for Council appointed positions. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

Evaluation Date: Type of Review: CITY OF DOVER PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS COUNCIL APPOINTED POSITIONS Employee: Department: Evaluator 1: Evaluator 2: Evaluator 3: Evaluator 4: Evaluator 5: Date Employed: Evaluation Period Covered: From: To: Date of Next Review: Current Annual Salary: Below Market At Market Above Market Above Maximum Salary Ranges: SCORING TABLE Performance Weighted X Weight = Score Score PART 1 - Planned Goal and Unplanned Assignment X = Results PART 2 - Core Competencies X = OVERALL SCORE (Part 1 + Part 2) Pay for Performance Evaluation 1 of 12 (Printed Jan 22, 2009)

PERFORMANCE RATING DEFINITIONS Outstanding: Performance Points 5 This level of performance represents the achievement of significant and exceptional results. The employee consistently achieved additional, significant results beyond established targets and significantly exceeds position requirements. The employee actively and continuously exhibits initiative and innovation and serves as a model for others. Commendable: Performance Points 4 Demonstrates above-average knowledge, skills, abilities and effort. Performance goes beyond the position requirements and exceeds expected results. Performance measurably exceeds expectations. Employee exhibits initiative and resourcefulness in going beyond expectations of job performance in accomplishing goals and objectives. Good: Performance Points 3 The employee is effective, with good, solid performance as demonstrated by achieving a majority of results and demonstrating most competencies successfully. Job performance is accomplished in an efficient and competent manner. This performance is fully satisfactory and meets acceptable or expected standards for the job. Work efficiency and effectiveness support the overall productivity of the work unit. Employee accomplishes assigned tasks with expected direction and assistance. Acceptable With Some Improvement Needed: Performance Points 2 The employee has met the basic expectations however has not performed the assigned duties in a fully or consistently competent manner thus requiring additional support of others. Inefficiency and/or ineffectiveness affects the productivity of the work unit. Does not consistently demonstrate the required knowledge, skills, abilities and/or effort for this position. Higher level of performance may be possible through increased effort, training and guidance. Performance at this level will be subject to continued careful assessment. Unsatisfactory: Performance Points 1 Minimum standards for the job are not met; job duties are performed at a marginal level or not performed, or must be performed by others. There is minimal contribution to work unit productivity. Employee is unwilling or unable to improve. A need for further improvement is clearly recognized, identified and must occur immediately. Employee requires constant and close supervision. Continued performance at this level, absent any potential or evidence of immediate improvement will lead to progressive discipline up to and including termination. Pay for Performance Evaluation 3 of 12 (Printed Jan 22, 2009)

PART 1: Planned Goals and Unplanned Assignments GOAL/OBJECTIVE: Write clear, concise statements relative to the principal goals/objectives for the position. Establish the relative importance (priority) of each goal/objective. These planned goals and objectives are listed on the most recent evaluation completed for the employee. RESULT ACHIEVED: Comment on the degree and quality of the results achieved and note and extenuating circumstances affecting the results. When performance is "Outstanding," "Needs Improvement" or "Unsatisfactory," specific reasons/examples must be included or attached. PRIORITY: List the major planned goals and unplanned assignments in order of priority, with number one being the highest priority. 1 PLANNED GOAL/OBJECTIVE PRIORITY: Performance Rating (points): RESULT ACHIEVED 2 PLANNED GOAL/OBJECTIVE PRIORITY: Performance Rating (points): RESULT ACHIEVED 3 PLANNED GOAL/OBJECTIVE PRIORITY: Performance Rating (points): RESULT ACHIEVED 4 PLANNED GOAL/OBJECTIVE PRIORITY: Performance Rating (points): RESULT ACHIEVED 5 PLANNED GOAL/OBJECTIVE PRIORITY: Performance Rating (points): RESULT ACHIEVED Pay for Performance Evaluation 4 of 12 (Printed Jan 22, 2009)

ADD UPDATED INFORMATION REGARDING MAJOR UNPLANNED ASSIGNMENTS AS APPROPRIATE THAT OCCURRED DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD THAT WAS NOT CITED ABOVE. ADDITIONAL TASKS ASSIGNED AND RESULT ACHIEVED TITLE Performance Rating (points): RESULT ACHIEVED TITLE Performance Rating (points): RESULT ACHIEVED TITLE Performance Rating (points): RESULT ACHIEVED TITLE Performance Rating (points): RESULT ACHIEVED TITLE Performance Rating (points): RESULT ACHIEVED Pay for Performance Evaluation 5 of 12 (Printed Jan 22, 2009)

PART 2: Core Competency Elements Performance Rating (points): Accountability/Leadership/Work Management Responds to Mayor and Council requests in a timely manner. Adjusts schedule to meet with Council to listen to and address their concerns. Handles Constituent complaints referred by Mayor and City Council in an effective and timely manner. Accepts criticism and feedback from Council. Completes work assignments from City Council within established deadlines and guidelines. Accepts responsibility for actions and results. Accepts responsibility for work assignments and ensures desired results are achieved within established deadlines and guidelines. Reports to work regularly and is on time for work and meetings in accordance with department/personnel policy; schedules appointments at appropriate times. Works effectively under pressure conditions, such as heavy workloads or deadline situations, with productivity remaining consistent. Observes safety rules, reports, and corrects conditions and/or practices in work environment that are or may become unsafe. Inspires and motivates others in addition to leading by example. Remarks/Example Performance Rating (points): Communication and Customer Service Updates Mayor and Council on City actions as appropriate and in a manner that is clearly and easily understood. Ensures that appropriate staff and Council are provided with all relevant information. Demonstrates effective written reports & CAFs to City Council; clearly conveys ideas and information in a written format using proper grammar and punctuation when preparing written reports that are comprehensive, well-organized, clearly written & timely. Attends civic and community meetings, as appropriate, to represent the City to hear concerns of its citizens. Demonstrates effective oral communication skills and conveys ideas and information in a clear and concise manner. Demonstrates effective presentation skills at meetings. Responds promptly and effectively to citizen questions, concerns, and complaints treating each citizens/customers with courtesy and respect under all circumstances. Always maintains a highly professional demeanor. With an open-mind communicates with all staff and customers comments and suggestions. Remarks/Example Performance Rating (points): Job Knowledge Pay for Performance Evaluation 6 of 12 (Printed Jan 22, 2009)

Has knowledge of and complies with applicable City policies, procedures, regulations and Council initiatives. Ability to research and recommend new initiatives requested by City Council. Takes initiative to receive on the job and training and attend appropriate conferences to further development and job knowledge. Possesses, demonstrates and applies the knowledge of relevant laws, rules, regulations and state of the art equipment, when available, within the profession and uses appropriate resources to make knowledgeable decisions. Understands job responsibilities and demonstrates competency. When made available to the employee, employee participates in training programs, takes advantage of other continuing education opportunities, and/or reads professional publications to keep current on techniques or methodologies appropriate to the job. Continuously analyzes current department operations, identifies areas where improvement may be made to better serve the public, reduces City expenses, increases revenue efficiency and implements these improvements where appropriate. Remarks/Example Performance Rating (points): Planning, Organization, Problem Solving and Decision Making Includes appropriate people in decision-making process and keeps Council apprised when appropriate. Sets priorities and meets deadlines for work activities and Council initiatives. Presents Annual Budget to Council in the agreed upon time frame and format along with Finance Director. Allows for flexibility in work activities to meet changing needs for unusual situations and anticipates variations in work flow and plans accordingly for unexpected situations. Ability to devise effective solutions to problems or identify effective measures and procedures for accomplishing objectives. Demonstrates effective decision making skills. Remarks/Example Performance Rating (points): Relationships within the Organization Works cooperatively with Council and other Council appointees. Works cooperatively with fellow employees and other departments in order to accomplish work effectively and efficiently as well as in accomplishing the City's goals and mission. Contributes to good working relationships with fellow employees; involves fellow workers in formulating department objectives and planning work activities as appropriate. Supports the City's goal of valuing diversity within the workforce. Remarks/Example Pay for Performance Evaluation 7 of 12 (Printed Jan 22, 2009)

Performance Rating (points): Supervisory Skills (Not applicable to employees who do not supervise) Understands and explains the City's Strategic Organizational Plan to employees and Council. Communicates and explains performance standards, organizational goals and objectives to subordinates. Provides and evaluates training for personnel to ensure effective and consistent job performance and to instruct personnel in new methods or techniques to be utilized. Provides and evaluates sufficient orientation or training of new personnel. Documents ongoing employee performance, especially in critical areas. Properly manages personnel and resources within Budget guidelines. Is familiar with established personnel policies, procedures and labor agreements, operates in a consistent manner with these and seeks advice of the Human Resources Department and outside Counsel when appropriate. Delegates responsibilities to co-workers as appropriate and establishes a follow-up plan. Actively supports the City's cultural diversity programs and policies. Remarks/Example Pay for Performance Evaluation 8 of 12 (Printed Jan 22, 2009)

OVERALL COMMENTS: A detailed narrative should be included to express any comments or concerns that were not addressed previously in the evaluation. Pay for Performance Evaluation 9 of 12 (Printed Jan 22, 2009)

PART 3: Major Responsibilities for Next Year List goals/objectives for the coming year to be rated during the next evaluation. Goals are to be S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistically High, Target Date) GOAL/OBJECTIVE PRIORITY: GOAL/OBJECTIVE PRIORITY: GOAL/OBJECTIVE PRIORITY: GOAL/OBJECTIVE PRIORITY: GOAL/OBJECTIVE PRIORITY: Pay for Performance Evaluation 10 of 12 (Printed Jan 22, 2009)

PART 4: Employee's Professional Development Plan Establish a development plan listing goals and objectives with the employee for the coming year. The development plan includes specific actions that the employee can take to enhance performance. The objectives are results the employee will be expected to achieve and are the basis for the next formal performance evaluation. This development plan must accompany the performance evaluation in the employee's personnel file. Pay for Performance Evaluation 11 of 12 (Printed Jan 22, 2009)

SIGNATURES The employee and the evaluator are to sign in the space below after they have reviewed the evaluation. The employee’s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the evaluation. Any written comments made by the employee must be attached. Employee: I have had this evaluation explained to me. I agree with this evaluation. I do not agree with this evaluation. I wish to appeal this evaluation. I have attached an addendum to this evaluation. Additional Comments: Signature of Employee Date Evaluator: I have explained this evaluation to the employee and attest that the information contained herein represents my best judgment of the employee’s performance. I have attached an addendum to this evaluation. Signature of Evaluator Date Department Head Date Signature Human Resources Director Date Signature Pay for Performance Evaluation 12 of 12 (Printed Jan 22, 2009)

APPENDIX 4 This appendix includes the PFP Calculation Worksheets used over the past several years. It is provided for historical purposes. Management Advisory Group, Inc. 2009

Budget Summary City of Dover Memorandum Office of the City Manager P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903-0475 Phone: (302) 736-7005 FAX: (302) 736-7002 E-m ail: tdeprima@dover.de.us To: Mayor and City Council From: Anthony J. DePrima, AICP City Manager Date: May 3, 2004 Subject: Pay-for-Performance Salary Approval for Fiscal Year 2005 With the Council’s approval of the City’s first pay for performance plan in Fiscal Year 2004, we submit the following: Market Analysis Memorandum with attachments Pay-for-Performance Salary Calculation Worksheet Revised City of Dover Pay Plans (Grades and Ranges) This is the first market analysis since the City consulted with the Public Administrative Service in 2002. The market analysis was prepared by our Human Resources Director, Frank Szyjka. We plan to perform this analysis on an annual basis. The market analysis recommends an average increase of 3.5 percent for non-bargaining employees based on market movement. Also recommended is an additional 1.0 percent increase to compensate for the difference between this year’s average non-bargaining increase of 2.0 percent for “meeting expectations” verses the FOP settlement of 3.0 percent and the 2.5 percent for the IBEW. According to the market analysis, we have developed the Pay-for-Performance Salary Calculation Worksheet for your approval. The Pay-for-Performance Salary Calculation Worksheet is a matrix which compensates non-bargaining employees based on (1) their evaluated job performance and (2) where their compensation falls in City of Dover pay plan ranges. We have budgeted $174,191 to cover the increases. This budget number is based on estimated scores that we received from department heads. Lastly, the market analysis recommends City of Dover Labor Grades increase by 3.2 percent. We have attached the City of Dover Pay Plans, both current and proposed, for your review. This does not represent an additional increase over the P.F.P. increases. We are eager to move forward with a compensation program that integrates the City’s Strategic Plan, employees’ goals and objectives, and performance. We believe this rewards employees for achieving their goals and objectives and compensates them properly for their performance. 2005 Annual Operating Budget

Budget Summary City of Dover Memorandum TO: Tony DePrima FROM: Frank E. Szyjka DATE: April 28, 2004 SUBJECT: Market Analysis with Recommendation for projected increases and LG movement FY 2004/05 I recommend that the City of Dover Labor Grades increase by 3.2 percent. This recommendation is based on review of various surveys and Government reports. I also recommend that the salary increase for the City of Dover non-bargaining positions should be 3.5 percent based on these same reports and discussions with area municipalities. Unless the City elects to retroactively give non-bargaining employees an additional 1.0 percent increase based on the difference between this year’s average non-bargaining increase of 2.0 percent verses the proposed FOP settlement of 3.0 percent, you will need to consider adding this 1.0 percent to next year’s recommended increase for a total of 4.5 percent. Sources used include the ICMA 2004 Survey and Annual Report on Local Government Executive Salaries and Fringe Benefits which increased the range from 2.7 percent to a high of 3.9 percent with the majority of ranges increasing over 3.4 percent. Specific ICMA reports used include both Northeast Regional Information and the South Region Information by population group (cities ranging from 25,000 – 49,999). In addition, the Bureau of National Affairs Daily Labor Report, which compiles up-to-date information on 2004 bargaining settlements and State and Local Government data, outlined the average increase of 3.4 percent which also supports the recommendation. As an added source of information, I completed a phone survey of local municipalities to find out what their salary increase plans are for the upcoming year. The results indicated increases in midpoint of 2.5 percent to 4.0 percent with at least two of the surveyed employers adding COLA to the planned increases. I have attached the Bureau of National Affairs report and the information gathered from area municipalities. The ICMA reports are a total of 260 pages. If you need a copy of this information, please advise. CONFIDENTIAL 2005 Annual Operating Budget

Budget Summary City of Dover NON-BARGAINING MARKET SURVEY Municipality Percentage Increase/Adjustment Explanation Kent Coun ty 4.0 percent (2 .0 percent COL A plus 2.0 Em ployees receive both a Step increase and percent Step) COLA yearly. City of Newark 3.5 percent Em ployees receive the same as the bargaining unit (will be 4.0 percent in 2005) City of W ilmington 0.0 percent (possible $500 bonus) Non-Bargaining - no increase since 7/00 - no con tracts Ocean City, MD 3.0 percent Midpoint Adjustment Performance-based system em ployees at Minimum 4.0 percent plus Em ployees at Maximum 2.0 percent plus City of Bowie, MD 2.5 percent - 6.5 percent 2.5 percent COLA established by contract neg otiation for three yea rs plus up to 4.0 percent Step Duke Power Anticipate 2.0 percent every six months Sa m e as bargaining unit 2005 Annual Operating Budget

Budget Summary City of Dover DAILY LABOR REPORT, March 18, 2004 Cop yright 2 00 4 T he B ureau of N at ional Affairs, Inc., DAILY LABOR REPORT March 18, 2004, Thursday 52 DLR D-24 (2004) L EN GT H : 722 words S ECT IO N : E CO N OM IC NE W S TITLE: Colle ctive Ba rga inin g: B NA DA TA SH OW AVE RA GE W AG E IN CR EASE O F 3 .4 PER CENT IN FIRST YEAR OF NEW CON TRACTS TEXT: Data compiled by BNA from 2004 bargaining settlements through March 15 showed that the ave rag e first-year wa ge increas e was 3.4 pe rcen t, the sam e increa se repo rted in th e com parab le period of 2003. The median first-year wage increase from the settlements was 3.1 percent, the same as that reported in the comparable period of 2003, and the weighted average increase was 1.8 percent, comp ared w ith 2.4 percen t a year ea rlier. When construction and state and local government contracts were excluded, the average increase was 3.6 percent, compared with 3.3 percent in 2003; the med ian was 3.1 percent, compared with 3 percent; and the weighted average was 1.5 percent, compared with 1.8 percent in 2003. The manufacturing average increase was 2.6 percent, compared with 1.8 percent in 2003, and the median was 2.5 percent, compared with 2.4 percent. Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction) contracts provided an average increase was 4 percent, compared with 3.9 percent a year earlier, and the m edian was 3.4 percent, compared with 3.5 percent. Con struct ion con tracts showe d an average increa se o f 3.4 percen t, the sam e as that repo rted in 2003, and a median of 3.2 percent, compared with 4.1 percent a year earlier. State and local government agreements provided an average increase of 3.2 percent, compared with 3.5 percent in 2003, and a median of 3 percent, compared with 3 .5 percent. Factoring lump-sum payments into calculations, the all-settlements average first-year wage increase to date in 2004 w as 3.8 percent, compared w ith 3.4 percent in the comparable period of 2003. The median was 3.3 percent, compared with 3.1 percent in 2003, and the weighted average increase wa s 2.4 percent, the sam e increase reported last year. The all-settlements (excluding cons truction and state a nd local governmen t) average increase was 4.1percent, compared with 3.4 percent in 2003; the median was 3.4 percent, compared with 3 percent; and the weighted average was 2.4 percent, compared with 1.8 percent in 2003. Manufacturing settlements with lump sums posted an average increase of 3.6 percent, compared with 2 percent in 2003 , and a median of 3.2 percent, compared with 2 .4 percent. Non man ufacturing (ex cluding construction) contrac ts prov ided an av erag e increa se of 4.3 percen t, com pared with 3.9 pe rcen t, and a m edia n of 3.5 percen t, the sam e increa se repo rted in 20 03 . Th e s ta te an d loca l gov ernmen t a ve rage increa se w as 3.2 pe rcen t, com pared with 3.5 2005 Annual Operating Budget

Budget Summary City of Dover percent in 2003, and the m edian was 3 p ercent, compared with 3.5 percent. Su mm aries of recen t se ttleme nts an d contract s with deferred increas es t ha t too k effect recently follow the tables below. FIRST-YEAR WAGE INCREASES Lump Sums Not Factored Year-to-date 2004 Year-to-date 2003 Wgt. Average Median Wgt. Average Median Avg. Avg. All s et tlem en ts ...... 1.8% 3.4% 3.1% 2.4% 3.4% 3.1% All settlements, excluding construction & sta te a nd local 1.5% 3.6% 3.1% 1.8% 3.3% 3.0% gov ernmen t...... Man ufacturing...... 1.9% 2.6% 2.5% 4.6% 1.8% 2.4% Nonmanufacturing, excluding 1.5% 4.0% 3.4% 1.4% 3.9% 3.5% construction...... Con struction...... 2.9% 3.4% 3.2% 3.4% 3.4% 4.1% Sta te a nd local 2.3% 3.2% 3.0% 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% gov ernmen t...... Lump Sums Factored Year-to-date 2004 Year-to-date 2003 Wgt. Average Median Wgt. Average Median Avg. Avg. All s et tlem en ts ...... 2.4% 3.8% 3.3% 2.4% 3.4% 3.1% All settlements, excluding construction & sta te a nd local 2.4% 4.1% 3.4% 1.8% 3.4% 3.0% gov ernmen t...... Man ufacturing...... 4.2% 3.6% 3.2% 4.6% 2.0% 2.4% Nonmanufacturing, excluding 2.0% 4.3% 3.5% 1.4% 3.9% 3.5% construction...... Con struction...... 2.9% 3.4% 3.2% 3.4% 3.4% 4.1% Sta te a nd local 2.3% 3.2% 3.0% 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% gov ernmen t...... Note: The statistical summary above is subject to revision as more information becomes available. The summary does not include automatic increases effective after 12 months (designated as deferred increases), cost- of-living adjustments, or Canadian settlements. Portions of construction wage increases may be diverted to benefits. 2005 Annual Operating Budget

Budget Summary City of Dover P.F.P. SALARY CALCULATION WORKSHEET (Adopted by City Council on June 28, 2004) OVERALL SCORE ADJUSTMENT Employee Employee Employee Employee at FROM TO Above Above Below M arket Market Market Maximum Unsatisfactory 10 15 0 0 0 0 Needs Improvement 16 25 0 0 0 0 Good 26 35 4.75% 4.50% 4.25% 4.00% Commendable 36 45 5.00% 4.75% 4.50% 4.00% Outstanding 46 50 5.50% 5.00% 4.75% 4.00% 2005 Annual Operating Budget

Budget Summary City of Dover CITY OF DOVER PAY PLANS CURRENT PROPOSED GRADE MINIMUM MARKET MAXIMUM MINIMUM MARKET MAXIMUM 101 $14,065 $16,878 $22,110 $14,515 $17,418 $22,818 102 $14,768 $17,722 $23,216 $15,241 $18,289 $23,959 103 $15,507 $18,608 $24,377 $16,003 $19,203 $25,157 104 $16,282 $19,539 $25,596 $16,803 $20,164 $26,415 105 $17,096 $20,516 $26,875 $17,643 $21,173 $27,735 106 $17,951 $21,541 $28,219 $18,525 $22,230 $29,122 107 $18,849 $22,618 $29,630 $19,452 $23,342 $30,578 108 $19,791 $23,749 $31,112 $20,424 $24,509 $32,108 109 $20,781 $24,937 $32,667 $21,446 $25,735 $33,712 110 $21,820 $26,184 $34,301 $22,518 $27,022 $35,399 111 $22,911 $27,493 $36,016 $23,644 $28,373 $37,169 112 $24,056 $28,867 $37,816 $24,826 $29,791 $39,026 113 $25,259 $30,311 $39,707 $26,067 $31,281 $40,978 114 $26,522 $31,826 $41,692 $27,371 $32,844 $43,026 115 $27,848 $33,418 $43,777 $28,739 $34,487 $45,178 116 $29,240 $35,089 $45,966 $30,176 $36,212 $47,437 117 $30,702 $36,843 $48,264 $31,684 $38,022 $49,808 118 $32,238 $38,685 $50,677 $33,270 $39,923 $52,299 119 $33,849 $40,619 $53,211 $34,932 $41,919 $54,914 120 $35,542 $42,650 $55,872 $36,679 $44,015 $57,660 121 $37,319 $44,783 $58,665 $38,513 $46,216 $60,542 122 $39,185 $47,022 $61,599 $40,439 $48,527 $63,570 123 $41,144 $49,373 $64,679 $42,461 $50,953 $66,749 124 $43,201 $51,842 $67,913 $44,583 $53,501 $70,086 125 $45,361 $54,434 $71,308 $46,813 $56,176 $73,590 126 $47,630 $57,155 $74,874 $49,154 $58,984 $77,270 127 $50,011 $60,013 $78,617 $51,611 $61,933 $81,133 128 $52,512 $63,014 $82,548 $54,192 $65,030 $85,190 129 $55,137 $66,165 $86,676 $56,901 $68,282 $89,450 130 $57,894 $69,473 $91,009 $59,747 $71,696 $93,921 131 $60,789 $72,946 $95,560 $62,734 $75,280 $98,618 132 $63,828 $76,594 $100,338 $65,870 $79,045 $103,549 133 $67,020 $80,424 $105,355 $69,165 $82,998 $108,726 134 $70,371 $84,445 $110,623 $72,623 $87,147 $114,163 135 $73,889 $88,667 $116,154 $76,253 $91,504 $119,871 136 $77,584 $93,100 $121,961 $80,067 $96,079 $125,864 137 $81,463 $97,755 $128,059 $84,070 $100,883 $132,157 2005 Annual Operating Budget

Appendix D - Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover Memorandum Office of the City Manager P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903-0475 Phone: (302) 736-7005 FAX: (302) 736-7002 E-mail: tdeprima@dover.de.us To: Mayor and City Council From: Anthony J. DePrima, AICP City Manager Date: April 18, 2005 Subject: Pay-for-Performance Salary Approval for Fiscal Year 2006 This is the second market analysis since the City consulted with the Public Administrative Service in 2002. The market analysis was prepared by our Human Resources Director, Frank Szyjka. We plan to perform this analysis on an annual basis. The following are submitted: Market Analysis Memorandum with attachments Pay-for-Performance Salary Calculation Worksheet Revised City of Dover Pay Plans (Grades and Ranges) The market analysis recommends an increase of 3.5 percent for non-bargaining employees based on market movement. According to the market analysis, we have developed the Pay-for-Performance Salary Calculation Worksheet for your approval. For employees who are below market, an additional 3.0 percent increase is recommended to bring the employees within the market ranges. The Pay-for-Performance Salary Calculation Worksheet is a matrix which compensates non-bargaining employees based on (1) their evaluated job performance and (2) where their compensation falls in City of Dover pay plan ranges. We have budgeted $179,057 to cover the increases. This budget number is based on estimated scores that we received from department heads. We are eager to move forward with a compensation program that integrates the City’s Strategic Plan, employees’ goals and objectives, and performance. W e believe this rewards employees for achieving their goals and objectives and compensates them properly for their performance. 2006 Annual Operating Budget 385

Appendix D - Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover Memorandum To: Tony DePrima From: Frank E. Szyjka Date: February 24, 2005 Re: Recommendation for projected increases and LG movement FY 2005-06 I recommend that the salary market increase for the City of Dover non-bargaining positions and corresponding salary range increase should be 3.5% based on various nationwide and local surveys and Government reports assuming good performance. It is also recommended that non-bargaining employees below market performing at acceptable levels be granted an added differential of 3.0% to achieve the PFP goal of paying non-bargaining employees at market within a maximum seven year period of time assuming good performance. There are four (4) employees in this category. Sources used include the ICMA 2004 Survey and Annual Report on Local Government Executive Salaries and Fringe Benefits which highlighted that the highest increase in average salary from 2003–2004 is for Chief Librarian at 12.9%. The second highest was for Public Works Directors at 10.1%. The range was from 2.7% to a high of over 12.0% with the majority of ranges increasing over 3.4%. Specific ICMA reports used include both Northeast Regional information and the South Regional information by population group (cities ranging from 25,000 – 49,999). In addition, the American Public Power Association (APPA) and the Bureau of National Affairs Daily Labor Report, which compiles up-to-date information on 2004 Bargaining settlements and State and Local Government data, outlined the average increase of 3.5% which also supports the recommendation. As an added source of information, I completed a phone survey of local municipalities to find out what their salary increase plans are for the upcoming year, and the results indicated increases in midpoint of 2.5% to 4% and, as mentioned last year, at least two of the surveyed employers adding COLA to the planned increases. Additional surveys used that support the recommendation include a Delaware Governmental Compensation Survey for Local Governments conducted by the University of Delaware and a City of Salisbury and Wicomico County Compensation Survey. I have attached the local market survey results from area municipalities. The Bureau of National Affairs report, ICMA, APPA, Delaware Government, and Salisbury surveys are available upon request. 386 2006 Annual Operating Budget

Appendix D - Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover NON-BARGAINING MARKET SURVEY FEBRUARY 20, 2005 Municipality Percentage Increase/Adjustment Explanation Kent County 4.0 percent (2.0 percent COLA plus 2.0 Employees receive both a Step increase percent Step) and COLA yearly. City of Newark 3.5 percent Employees receive the same as the bargaining unit (will be 4.0 percent in 2005) City of Wilmington 2.0 percent Employees receive the same as the bargaining unit – 2.0 percent each year retroactive to 2000 through 2007. Ocean City, MD 3.0 percent Midpoint Adjustment Performance-based system employees at Minimum 4.0 percent plus Employees at Maximum 2.0 percent plus City of Bowie, MD 2.5 percent - 6.5 percent 2.5 percent COLA established by contract negotiations for three years plus up to 4.0 percent Step Duke Power Anticipates 2.0 percent every six Same as bargaining unit plus additional months discretionary 2006 Annual Operating Budget 387

Appendix D - Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover P.F.P. SALARY CALCULATION WORKSHEET (Adopted by City Council on June 27, 2005.) OVERALL SCORE ADJUSTMENT Employee Employee Employee Employee From To Below At Above Above Market Market Market Maximum Unsatisfactory 10 15 0 0 0 0 Needs Improvement 16 25 0 0 0 0 Good 26 35 6.50% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% Commendable 36 45 7.00% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% Outstanding 46 50 7.50% 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% Note: Currently there are 25 non-bargaining employees below market, 32 in the market range, and 20 in the above market range. Only one non-bargaining employee is above maximum. 388 2006 Annual Operating Budget

Appendix D - Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover CITY OF DOVER PAY PLANS There is an increase of 3.5 percent from CURRENT to PROPOSED. CURRENT PROPOSED GRADE Below Market At Market Above Market Below Market At Market Above Market 101 $14,515 $17,418 $22,818 $15,023 $18,028 $23,616 102 $15,241 $18,289 $23,959 $15,774 $18,929 $24,797 103 $16,003 $19,203 $25,157 $16,563 $19,876 $26,038 104 $16,803 $20,164 $26,415 $17,391 $20,870 $27,340 105 $17,643 $21,173 $27,735 $18,261 $21,914 $28,706 106 $18,525 $22,230 $29,122 $19,174 $23,008 $30,141 107 $19,452 $23,342 $30,578 $20,133 $24,159 $31,648 108 $20,424 $24,509 $32,108 $21,139 $25,367 $33,231 109 $21,446 $25,735 $33,712 $22,197 $26,636 $34,892 110 $22,518 $27,022 $35,399 $23,306 $27,968 $36,638 111 $23,644 $28,373 $37,169 $24,472 $29,366 $38,469 112 $24,826 $29,791 $39,026 $25,695 $30,833 $40,392 113 $26,067 $31,281 $40,978 $26,980 $32,376 $42,412 114 $27,371 $32,844 $43,026 $28,329 $33,994 $44,532 115 $28,739 $34,487 $45,178 $29,745 $35,694 $46,759 116 $30,176 $36,212 $47,437 $31,232 $37,479 $49,097 117 $31,684 $38,022 $49,808 $32,793 $39,353 $51,552 118 $33,270 $39,923 $52,299 $34,434 $41,320 $54,129 119 $34,932 $41,919 $54,914 $36,155 $43,386 $56,836 120 $36,679 $44,015 $57,660 $37,963 $45,555 $59,678 121 $38,513 $46,216 $60,542 $39,861 $47,834 $62,661 122 $40,439 $48,527 $63,570 $41,854 $50,225 $65,795 123 $42,461 $50,953 $66,749 $43,947 $52,736 $69,085 124 $44,583 $53,501 $70,086 $46,144 $55,373 $72,539 125 $46,813 $56,176 $73,590 $48,451 $58,142 $76,166 126 $49,154 $58,984 $77,270 $50,875 $61,048 $79,974 127 $51,611 $61,933 $81,133 $53,418 $64,101 $83,972 128 $54,192 $65,030 $85,190 $56,089 $67,307 $88,171 129 $56,901 $68,282 $89,450 $58,893 $70,672 $92,580 130 $59,747 $71,696 $93,921 $61,838 $74,206 $97,209 131 $62,734 $75,280 $98,618 $64,930 $77,915 $102,070 132 $65,870 $79,045 $103,549 $68,176 $81,812 $107,173 133 $69,165 $82,998 $108,726 $71,585 $85,902 $112,532 134 $72,623 $87,147 $114,163 $75,165 $90,197 $118,159 135 $76,253 $91,504 $119,871 $78,922 $94,707 $124,066 136 $80,067 $96,079 $125,864 $82,869 $99,442 $130,269 137 $84,070 $100,883 $132,157 $87,012 $104,414 $136,782 2006 Annual Operating Budget 389

Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover NON-BARGAINING SALARY, PROMOTIONS, AND STAFF ADDITION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Market Increase Recommendations The recommendation is that the Non-Bargaining salary pay grades be increased 3.0 percent based on movement in the labor market. This would also mean that an employee whose salary is within the market range and whose performance is good would received a 3.0 percent increase in salary. In making these recommendations, I considered the following survey of increases planned in the market: City of Newark 3.0% Kent County 3.0% COLA plus 2.0% step City of Wilmington 2.0% State of Delaware 1.0% or $500 (Governor’s Budgets – Legislators indicate more is likely) New Castle County 3.1% Ocean City, MD 3.0% (plus additional five percent based on market study) BNA Labor Report 3.2% - (first year settled increases YTD) BNA Labor Report 2.9% - (first year settled local and state government YTD) Table I on the following page shows the revised pay grades based on a 3.0 percent increase. 2007 Annual Operating Budget 109

Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover Table I City of Dover Pay Plans There is an increase of 3.0 percent from CURRENT to PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED Grade Below Market At Market Above Market Below Market At Market Above Market 101 15,023 17,888 20,754 15,474 18,425 21,376 102 15,774 18,783 21,792 16,247 19,346 22,445 103 16,563 19,722 22,881 17,060 20,314 23,568 104 17,391 20,708 24,025 17,913 21,330 24,746 105 18,261 21,743 25,226 18,808 22,396 25,983 106 19,174 22,831 26,487 19,749 23,516 27,282 107 20,133 23,972 27,812 20,737 24,692 28,646 108 21,139 25,171 29,203 21,773 25,926 30,079 109 22,197 26,429 30,662 22,862 27,222 31,582 110 23,306 27,751 32,196 24,006 28,584 33,162 111 24,472 29,139 33,806 25,206 30,013 34,820 112 25,695 30,595 35,495 26,466 31,513 36,560 113 26,980 32,125 37,270 27,789 33,088 38,388 114 28,329 33,731 39,133 29,179 34,743 40,307 115 29,745 35,417 41,090 30,637 36,480 42,322 116 31,232 37,188 43,144 32,169 38,304 44,438 117 32,793 39,047 45,301 33,777 40,219 46,660 118 34,434 41,000 47,566 35,467 42,230 48,993 119 36,155 43,049 49,944 37,239 44,341 51,442 120 37,963 45,202 52,442 39,102 46,558 54,015 121 39,861 47,462 55,063 41,057 48,886 56,715 122 41,854 49,836 57,817 43,110 51,331 59,551 123 43,947 52,327 60,708 45,265 53,897 62,529 124 46,144 54,943 63,743 47,528 56,592 65,655 125 48,451 57,690 66,929 49,905 59,421 68,937 126 50,875 60,576 70,276 52,401 62,393 72,385 127 53,418 63,604 73,790 55,020 65,512 76,003 128 56,089 66,784 77,479 57,772 68,788 79,803 129 58,893 70,123 81,353 60,660 72,227 83,794 130 61,838 73,629 85,420 63,693 75,838 87,983 131 64,930 77,311 89,692 66,878 79,630 92,382 132 68,176 81,176 94,176 70,221 83,611 97,001 133 71,585 85,235 98,885 73,733 87,792 101,851 134 75,165 89,497 103,829 77,420 92,182 106,944 135 78,922 93,971 109,020 81,290 96,790 112,291 136 82,869 98,670 114,471 85,355 101,630 117,905 137 87,012 103,603 120,194 89,623 106,711 123,800 110 2007 Annual Operating Budget

Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover 2. Pay-For-Performance Below Market Increases Our Pay-For-Performance policy includes an additional increase for employees whose salary is below market range. The policy is to have an employee who starts at the entry level and who receives a GOOD evaluation move to market level in within seven years. This works out to a 2.7 percent additional increase above the market increase which is 3.0 percent as proposed above. There are 23 employees currently below market. This year for illustration, a table (Table II) showing the Department Heads, Managers, and Supervisors is being provided which shows current salary, market status, market range, and the salary increases proposed assuming a score in the “good performance range.” Table II Management Salary Increases Proposed for Fiscal Year 2007 Market Percent Title Salary Market Range Status Increase* City Manager 100,099 Below 103,603 120,193 5.7% Chief of Police 95,110 Market 89,497 103,828 3.0% Public Services Manager ** 93,268 Market 89,497 103,828 0.0% Utility Services Manager ** 93,268 Market 89,497 103,828 0.0% Finance Director/Treasurer 88,154 Market 77,311 89,691 3.0% Police Major 86,072 Above 70,123 81,352 2.5% Information Technology Director 82,174 Market 81,176 94,175 3.0% Senior City Administrator 80,454 Market 73,629 85,419 3.0% Central Services Director 76,537 Below 81,176 94,175 5.7% Inspections Director/Planner ** 73,000 Below 77,311 89,691 0.0% Line Crew Superintendent 72,244 Above 57,690 66,928 2.5% Parks and Recreation Director 68,089 Market 66,784 77,478 3.0% Human Resources Director 66,510 Below 73,629 85,419 5.7% Assistant Finance Director 63,900 Market 63,604 73,789 3.0% Assistant City Engineer 62,100 Below 63,604 73,789 5.7% Superintendent of Grounds 61,261 Above 49,836 57,816 2.5% Engineering Services and System Ops Supervisor 61,224 Market 57,690 66,928 3.0% Assistant City Engineer 59,046 Below 63,604 73,789 5.7% Library Director 56,881 Market 54,943 63,742 3.0% Public Works Operation Manager 56,152 Below 60,576 70,275 5.7% Police Resources Manager 55,346 Below 57,690 66,928 5.7% City Assessor ** 55,000 Market 52,327 60,707 0.0% City Clerk 54,532 Market 52,327 60,707 3.0% Customer Services Manager 49,901 Below 52,327 60,707 5.7% Purchaser *** 49,574 Market 45,202 52,441 3.0% Community Development Manager 44,624 Below 45,202 52,441 5.7% * Assuming a GOOD performance evaluation; actual increase may vary +/- two percent based on actual performance evaluation score. ** New hires or promotions that do not qualify for increases at this time *** Reclassification also recommended for this position. See the Promotion/Reclassification table. 2007 Annual Operating Budget 111

Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover Performance Scores The Pay-For-Performance policy uses a 0-50 weighted scoring system. This year’s performance spread (shown in Table II) uses a 0.75 percent pay increase differential between performance grades except for employees who are paid above the maximum of their grade where a 0.50 percent is used. This year the score ranges have been changed to encourage a more normal bell curve where more employees’ scores are disbursed into both the higher range and the lower range and less concentrated in the two middle ranges. Table III Performance Scores PFP SCORE ADJUSTMENT Employee Employee Employee Employee From To Above Above Below At Market Maximum Market Market Unsatisfactory 0 19 0 0 0 0 Acceptable but Some 20 29 0 1.50% 2.25% 3.00% Improvement Needed Good 30 35 1.50% 2.25% 3.00% 5.70% Commendable 36 41 3.00% 3.00% 3.75% 6.45% Outstanding 42 50 3.50% 3.75% 4.50% 7.20% Note: Currently there are 23 non-bargaining employees below market, 41 at market, and 16 in above market. Only two non-bargaining employees are above maximum. 3. Proposed Promotions and Grade Recommendations This year the City of Dover contracted with LaFlamme & Associates, Inc. who conducted a survey of area local government ranges to determine if our salary ranges and job titles are properly aligned. Also used to assist in this effort was data from similar studies done by Kent County, 2005 ICMA, 2005 Survey of Executive Salaries, 2005 Delaware Compensation Survey of Local and State Governments, and a few other sources. Based on these comparisons, no recommendations were made to move any job titles either up or down pay grades. During the budget process, two requests to promote employees were received. The two promotions were supported and are included in the budget. One was to promote the Purchaser to Purchasing and Material Manager which is the work actually performed. The other promotion was to promote a Clerk Typist II to an Administrative Assistant, again based on actual job performance. Also during the budget process, four requests to re-evaluate and reclassify positions were received. Out of these four, only one was supported by the Human Resource Department’s analysis and that is to reclassify the Records Management Coordinator from a Labor Grade 108 to a Grade 110. 112 2007 Annual Operating Budget

Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover 4. New Positions Recommendations Amount Department Position Justification Budgeted Police Police Officer This completes the Quality of Life Task Force. $51,723 Customer Account Because of rapid growth and additional responsibilities, there is $48,575 Services Clerk I not sufficient staff. Customers find themselves waiting in longer lines. We are also finding errors in metering, billing, and customer payments. These errors are becoming customer issues as well as revenue issues. We cannot maintain the quality of our services to customers without additional staff. Customer Account There is currently no backup for the Billing Clerk except the $61,083 Services Clerk III Customer Services Manager. There is no routine monitoring of our large customer accounts. We have experienced billing issues because mistakes are not detected for long periods of time. These errors are becoming customer issues as well as revenue issues. We currently do not have backup in our Collections area. We do not have a dedicated person to monitor the collections of taxes. Because of rapid growth and additional responsibilities, we cannot pull staff from other areas as we have in the past. Human HR Clerk The Human Resources Department will be assuming all risk $27,402 Resources management, vehicle/equipment insurance, and registration of all vehicle and equipment purchases for the City of Dover from the City Clerk's Office by June 2007. The Human Resources Department currently has a part-time employee. This position would be eliminated. Public Utilities/ Meter Tech I There is increased workload from the meter reading change- $48,048 Electric T & D out program and with anticipation of increased workload due to several large new developments including the privatization of the Dover Air Force Base housing and Eden Hill Farms. Tax Assessor Administrative There is currently no one to handle day-to-day management of $58,213 Assistant the office so that existing staff can work in the field. Until this position is filled, the office will not be able to provide an acceptable level of customer service. 2007 Annual Operating Budget 113

PAY-FOR- PERFORMANCE THE FOLLOWING SUBSECTIONS ARE INCLUDED: NON-BARGAINING SALARY, PROMOTIONS, AND STAFF ADDITION RECOMMENDATIONS MANAGEMENT SALARY INCREASES

Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover NON-BARGAINING SALARY, PROMOTIONS, AND STAFF ADDITION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Market Increase Recommendations The recommendation is that the Non-Bargaining salary pay grades be increased 3.5 percent based on movement in the labor market. This would also mean that an employee whose salary is within the market range and whose performance is good would receive a 3.5 percent increase in salary. In making these recommendations, I considered the following survey of increases planned in the market: Institute for Public Administration (IPA) 2006 Compensation Survey - Conducted by the University of Delaware. This survey covers eight State Governments and thirteen local Governments in the Mid-Atlantic region. The survey highlights that the mean local government increase was 3.7 percent and the State Government increase was 3.3 percent. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) - Calculates the wages and salary component of the Employment Cost Index (ECI) increased 3.7 percent nationally which is the same as the increase outlined by the IPA for Local governments. The ICMA 2006 Survey and Annual Report - Annual report on Local Government Executive Salaries and Fringe Benefits with the majority of ranges increasing over 3.4 percent. The BNA Labor Report - Average wage increase reported in 2006 was 3.3 percent. . The FOP Bargaining Unit - Increase for Fiscal Year 2007 is 3.5 percent. Table 1 on the following page shows the revised pay grades based on a 3.5 percent increase. 2008 Draft Annual Operating Budget 119

Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover Table I City of Dover Pay Plans There is an increase of 3.5 percent from CURRENT to PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED Grade Below Market At Market Above Market Below Market At Market Above Market 101 15,474 18,425 21,376 16,016 19,070 22,124 102 16,247 19,346 22,445 16,816 20,023 23,231 103 17,060 20,314 23,568 17,657 21,025 24,393 104 17,913 21,330 24,746 18,540 22,077 25,612 105 18,808 22,396 25,983 19,466 23,180 26,892 106 19,749 23,516 27,282 20,440 24,339 28,237 107 20,737 24,692 28,646 21,463 25,556 29,649 108 21,773 25,926 30,079 22,535 26,833 31,132 109 22,862 27,222 31,582 23,662 28,175 32,687 110 24,006 28,584 33,162 24,846 29,584 34,323 111 25,206 30,013 34,820 26,088 31,063 36,039 112 26,466 31,513 36,560 27,392 32,616 37,840 113 27,789 33,088 38,388 28,762 34,246 39,732 114 29,179 34,743 40,307 30,200 35,959 41,718 115 30,637 36,480 42,322 31,709 37,757 43,803 116 32,169 38,304 44,438 33,295 39,645 45,993 117 33,777 40,219 46,660 34,959 41,627 48,293 118 35,467 42,230 48,993 36,708 43,708 50,708 119 37,239 44,341 51,442 38,542 45,893 53,242 120 39,102 46,558 54,015 40,471 48,188 55,906 121 41,057 48,886 56,715 42,494 50,597 58,700 122 43,110 51,331 59,551 44,619 53,128 61,635 123 45,265 53,897 62,529 46,849 55,783 64,718 124 47,528 56,592 65,655 49,191 58,573 67,953 125 49,905 59,421 68,937 51,652 61,501 71,350 126 52,401 62,393 72,385 54,235 64,577 74,918 127 55,020 65,512 76,003 56,946 67,805 78,663 128 57,772 68,788 79,803 59,794 71,196 82,596 129 60,660 72,227 83,794 62,783 74,755 86,727 130 63,693 75,838 87,983 65,922 78,492 91,062 131 66,878 79,630 92,382 69,219 82,417 95,615 132 70,221 83,611 97,001 72,679 86,537 100,396 133 73,733 87,792 101,851 76,314 90,865 105,416 134 77,420 92,182 106,944 80,130 95,408 110,687 135 81,290 96,790 112,291 84,135 100,178 116,221 136 85,355 101,630 117,905 88,342 105,187 122,032 137 89,623 106,711 123,800 92,760 110,446 128,133 120 2008 Draft Annual Operating Budget

Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover 2. Pay-For-Performance Below Market Increases Our Pay-For-Performance policy includes an additional increase for employees whose salary is below market range. The policy is to have an employee who starts at the entry level and who receives a GOOD evaluation move to market level within seven years. This works out to a 2.7 percent additional increase above the market increase which is 3.5 percent as proposed above. There are 28 employees currently below market. This year for illustration, a table (Table II) showing the Department Heads, Managers, and Supervisors is being provided which shows current salary, market status, market range, and the salary increases proposed assuming a score in the “good performance range.” TABLE II Management Salary Increases Proposed for Fiscal Year 2008 Title Salary Market Status Market Range City Manager 106,555 Below 106,711 123,798 6.20% Chief of Police 99,390 Market 92,183 106,944 3.50% Public Services Manager 93,268 Market 92,183 106,944 3.50% Public Utilities Manager 100,000 Market 92,183 106944 3.50% Finance Director/Treasurer 91,460 Market 79,631 92,382 3.50% Police Major 88,654 Above 72,227 83,792 2.75% Information Technology Director 85,256 Market 83,611 96,999 3.50% Senior City Administrator 83,471 Market 75,838 87,981 3.50% Central Services Director 81,300 Below 83,611 96,999 6.20% Inspections Director/Planner 77,709 Below 79,631 92,382 6.20% Line Crew Superintendent 74,411 Above 59,422 68,937 2.75% Parks and Recreation Director 70,643 Market 68,788 79,802 3.50% Human Resources Director 70,301 Below 75,838 87,981 6.20% Assistant Finance Director open 67,572 80,121 Water/Wastewater Manager 74,865 Below 75,838 87,981 6.20% Superintendent of Grounds 63,511 Above 51,331 59,550 2.75% Engineering Services and System Ops Supervisor 69,872 Above 59,422 68,937 2.75% Library Director open 56,592 65,654 Public Works Operation Manager 59,353 Below 62,393 72,383 6.20% Police Resources Manager 58,916 Below 59,422 68,937 6.20% City Assessor 55,000 Market 53,897 62,527 3.50% City Clerk 54,532 Market 53,897 62,527 3.50% Customer Services Manager 53,494 Below 53,897 62,527 6.20% Contract and Procurement Manager 56,029 Market 53,897 62,527 3.50% Financial Reporting and Accounting Manager 58,600 Below 59,422 68,937 6.20% Meter Crew Leader 57,927 Above 44,342 51,442 2.75% Construction Manager 58,794 Market 51,331 59,550 3.50% Construction Manager 59,509 Market 51,331 59,550 3.50% Chief Building Inspector 51,368 Market 48,886 56,713 3.50% Relay Crew Leader open 44,342 51,442 Water Production Supervisor 51,916 Market 46,559 54,014 3.50% * Assuming a GOOD performance evaluation; actual increase may vary +/- two percent based on actual performance evaluation score. ** New hires or promotions that do not qualify for increases at this time *** Reclassification also recommended for this position. See the Promotion/Reclassification table. 2008 Draft Annual Operating Budget 121

Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover Performance Scores The Pay-For-Performance policy uses a 0-50 weighted scoring system. This year’s performance spread (shown in Table II) uses a 0.75 percent pay increase differential between performance grades except for employees who are paid above the maximum of their grade where a 0.50 percent is used. The score ranges encourage a more normal bell curve where more employees’ scores are disbursed into both the higher range and the lower range and less concentrated in the two middle ranges. Performance Scores PFP Score ADJUSTMENT Employee Employee Employee From To Above Market At Market Below Market 0 19 0 0 0 20 29 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 30 35 2.50% 3.25% 4.25% 36 41 3.25% 4.00% 6.00% 42 50 4.00% 4.75% 6.50% Note: Currently there are 28 non-bargaining employees below market, 40 at market, and 15 in above market. Only two non-bargaining employees are above maximum. 3. Proposed Promotions and Grade Recommendations During the budget process, four requests to promote employees were received. Each of these involves creating a new title to better reflect their actual or proposed responsibilities and appropriate adjustment in salary. The Planning division is reclassifying the Senior Planner to Principal Planner ($12,175). The Information Technologies Department is promoting a LAN Analyst to Senior LAN Analyst ($7,047). The Central Services Division is reclassifying the Secretary II to an Administrative Assistant position ($22,2,070). The Electric Department is requesting than an Administrative Assistant be promoted to a new position of Department Budget and Staff Supervisor ($640). These positions are promoted based on actual duties being performed and to improve operating efficiencies. 122 2008 Draft Annual Operating Budget

Pay-For-Performance Salary Information City of Dover 4. New Positions Recommendations Amount Department Position Justification Budgeted Tax Assessor Residential This position will provide staffing to support reassessment and re- $42,830 Assessment evaluation efforts in the Tax Office. Technician Tax Assessor Commercial This position will provide staffing to support reassessment and re- $61,564 Assessment evaluation efforts in the Tax Office. Technician Planning and Inspector Property Maintenance Inspector to increase the number of $45,341 Inspections inspectors on the community enhancement team. Position will be funded with proposed increases in related inspection fees and will not be filled until the new fees are approved. Recreation Center This position is requested to staff the John W. Pitts Recreation $33,035 Coordinator Center. This position will be responsible for the operation of the building and the staff for this facility. The Coordinator will supervise two part-time service center clerks and two part-time building supervisors that will be needed to operate the center. Information LAN Technician This position is requested to support the additional work load and $48,756 Technologies to improve service. In the last six months IT has taken on the responsibility of the City’s new telephone system. Also the number of PCs in the City has increased 40% from 153 (2001) to 218 (2007). This position will assist with support at the Police Department. Facilities Custodian This position is requested to staff the John W. Pitts Recreation $24,579 Management Center. It will also be used throughout the City buildings as needed. Public Utilities Civil Engineer I This engineer will provide much needed support to deal with water $79,396 Water/Wastewater quality concerns, inflow/infiltration problems and other issues Engineering & associated with aging infrastructure. Inspections Public Utilities GIS This position will allow the Water and Wastewater utilities to move $39,818 Water/Wastewater Technician forward with its GIS program to improve data collection and Engineering & management methods, as well as, enhance mapping efforts and Inspections system tracking. Currently the program is on hold because it was supported by Engineers who are no longer able to support the function due to more critical duties. Public Utilities Inspector This position is requested to meet current work load. Increased $50,593 Water/ construction volume has pushed the waiting time for requests from Wastewater 24 hours to 72 hours. Construction Public Utilities Water Service Currently there is only one service worker to accomplish all service $41,714 Water/ Worker work orders; including installing radio read meters and conducting Wastewater hydrant flow testing. The department is falling behind in radio read Divisions replacement and hydrant testing due to the Brown Water Project. The addition of a second permanent full-time person will assist in the bringing these programs up to date. Public Utilities Operator This position is requested to ensure the effective implementation of $43,104 Water/ unidirectional flushing of the City’s water system as a part of the Wastewater Brown Water Project. This flushing is critical to resolving the City’s Water Treatment water quality issues. Public Services Emergency Necessary to manage the City’s emergency preparedness $67,089 Administration Preparedness functions and to maintain compliance with State and Federal Staff Guidelines, so eligibility for grant revenues is maintained. Police Department Sex Crimes Unit This new unit will take over all sex offender management $35,000 responsibilities and allow the Community Policing Unit to attend to community concerns and various programs. In addition, the SCU will become intimately familiar with all of the sex offenders that reside, work or study in the City. In the past few years the number of sex offender notifications has increased dramatically. This increase is due to more stringent laws and the Dover Police Department taking on a more active role in sex offender management. The department verifies sex offenders addresses annually for Tier I offenders, semi-annually for Tier II offenders and quarterly for Tier III (most severe) sex offenders. 2008 Draft Annual Operating Budget 123

Pay­For­Performance Salary Information City of Dover NON­BARGAINING SALARY, PROMOTIONS, AND STAFF ADDITION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Market Increase Recommendations for Non‐Bargaining Employees The recommendation is that the Non‐Bargaining salary pay grades be increased 3.25 percent based on movement in the labor market. This would mean that an employee whose salary is within the market range and whose performance is good would receive a 3.25 percent increase in salary. In making this recommendation, the following surveys of increases planned in the market were considered: The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) ‐ Calculates the wages and salary component of the Employment Cost Index (ECI) increased 3.5% nationally. The ICMA 2007 Survey and Annual Report ‐ Annual report on Local Government Executive Salaries and Fringe Benefits with the majority of ranges increasing 1.77 percent. This is based upon the salaries for selected positions in the Mid‐Atlantic and South‐Atlantic regions. The BNA Labor Report ‐ Average wage increase reported in 2007 was 3.3 percent. The FOP Bargaining Unit ‐ Increase for FY 2009 is 4 percent. The IUE‐CWA Bargaining Unit – Increase for FY 2009 is 3.5 percent. The IBEW Bargaining Unit – Increase for FY 2009 is 3.5 percent. Table 1 on the following page shows the revised pay grades based on a 3.25 percent increase. 2009 Draft Operating Budget 159

Pay­For­Performance Salary Information City of Dover Table I City of Dover Pay Plans There is an increase of 3.25 percent from CURRENT to PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED Grade Below Market At Market Above Market Below Market At Market Above Market 101 16,016 19,070 22,124 16,537 19,690 22,843 102 16,816 20,023 23,231 17,363 20,674 23,986 103 17,657 21,025 24,393 18,231 21,708 25,186 104 18,540 22,077 25,612 19,143 22,795 26,444 105 19,466 23,180 26,892 20,099 23,933 27,766 106 20,440 24,339 28,237 21,104 25,130 29,155 107 21,463 25,556 29,649 22,161 26,387 30,613 108 22,535 26,833 31,132 23,267 27,705 32,144 109 23,662 28,175 32,687 24,431 29,091 33,749 110 24,846 29,584 34,323 25,653 30,545 35,438 111 26,088 31,063 36,039 26,936 32,073 37,210 112 27,392 32,616 37,840 28,282 33,676 39,070 113 28,762 34,246 39,732 29,697 35,359 41,023 114 30,200 35,959 41,718 31,182 37,128 43,074 115 31,709 37,757 43,803 32,740 38,984 45,227 116 33,295 39,645 45,993 34,377 40,933 47,488 117 34,959 41,627 48,293 36,095 42,980 49,863 118 36,708 43,708 50,708 37,901 45,129 52,356 119 38,542 45,893 53,242 39,795 47,385 54,972 120 40,471 48,188 55,906 41,786 49,754 57,723 121 42,494 50,597 58,700 43,875 52,241 60,608 122 44,619 53,128 61,635 46,069 54,855 63,638 123 46,849 55,783 64,718 48,372 57,596 66,821 124 49,191 58,573 67,953 50,790 60,477 70,161 125 51,652 61,501 71,350 53,331 63,500 73,669 126 54,235 64,577 74,918 55,998 66,676 77,353 127 56,949 67,805 78,663 58,800 70,009 81,220 128 59,794 71,196 82,596 61,737 73,510 85,280 129 62,783 74,755 86,727 64,823 77,185 89,546 130 65,922 78,492 91,062 68,064 81,043 94,022 131 69,219 82,417 95,615 71,469 85,096 98,722 132 72,679 86,537 100,396 75,041 89,349 103,659 133 76,314 90,865 105,416 78,794 93,818 108,842 134 80,130 95,408 110,687 82,734 98,509 114,284 135 84,135 100,178 116,221 86,869 103,434 119,998 136 88,342 105,187 122,032 91,213 108,606 125,998 160 2009 Draft Operating Budget

Pay­For­Performance Salary Information City of Dover 2. Pay‐For‐Performance Below Market Increases Our Pay‐For‐Performance policy includes an additional increase for employees whose salary is below market range. The policy is to have an employee who starts at the entry level and who receives a GOOD evaluation move to market level in within seven years. This works out to a 2.7 percent additional increase above the market increase which is 3.25 percent as proposed above. There are 26 employees currently below market. This year for illustration, a table (Table II) showing the Department Heads, Managers, and Supervisors is being provided which shows current salary, market status, market range, and the salary increases proposed assuming a score in the “good performance range.” TABLE II Management Salary Increases Proposed for Fiscal Year 2009 Title Salary Market Status Market Range FY 08 *Percent Rates Increase Meter Crew Leader 59,810 Above 45,783 53,114 2.50% Substation Relay Foreman 55,000 Above 45,783 53,114 2.50% ***Water Production Supervisor 53,992 Market 48,072 55,769 3.25% Water/Wastewater Manager 49,672 Market 48,072 55,769 3.25% Chief Building Inspector open - 50,475 58,556 - Superintendent of Grounds 65,535 Above 52,999 61,485 2.50% Construction Manager 62,336 Above 52,999 61,485 2.50% City Assessor open - 55,649 64,559 - City Clerk 59,693 Market 55,649 64,559 3.25% Customer Services Manager 56,703 Market 55,649 64,559 3.25% Contract and Procurement Manager 58,690 Market 55,649 64,559 3.25% Library Director open - 58,431 67,788 - Line Crew Superintendent 76,829 Above 61,353 71,177 2.50% Engineering Services and System Ops Supervisor 72,143 Above 61,353 71,177 2.50% Police Resources Manager 62,451 Market 61,353 71,177 3.25% Financial Reporting and Accounting Manager 62,116 Market 61,353 71,177 3.25% Public Works Operation Manager 61,875 Below 64,421 74,735 5.95% Assistant Finance Director 71,000 Market 69,768 82,725 3.25% Parks and Recreation Director 72,939 Market 71,024 82,396 3.25% Police Major 92,200 Above 74,574 86,515 2.50% Senior City Administrator 86,809 Market 78,303 90,840 3.25% **Human Resources Director 73,861 Below 78,303 90,840 5.95% **Controller/Treasurer 113,229 Above 82,219 95,384 2.50% Inspections Director/Planner 82,371 Market 82,219 95,384 3.25% Information Technology Director 88,666 Market 86,328 100,151 3.25% Central Services Director 86,103 Below 86,328 100,151 5.95% Chief of Police 104,111 Market 95,179 110,420 3.25% Public Services Manager 100,635 Market 95,179 110,420 3.25% Public Utilities Manager 104,000 Market 95,179 110,420 3.25% City Manager 112,948 Market 110,179 127,821 3.25% * Assuming a GOOD performance evaluation; actual increase may vary +/‐ two percent based on actual performance evaluation score. ** New hires or promotions that do not qualify for increases at this time/In accordance with the PFP policy these staff are given increases at their first annual review after hire or promotion. *** Reclassification also recommended for this position. See the Promotion/Reclassification table. 2009 Draft Operating Budget 161

Pay­For­Performance Salary Information City of Dover Performance Scores The Pay‐For‐Performance policy uses a 0‐50 weighted scoring system. This year’s performance spread (shown in Table III) uses a 0.75 percent pay increase differential between performance grades except for employees who are paid above the maximum of their grade and employees paid above market. The score ranges encourage a more normal bell curve where more employees’ scores are disbursed into both the higher range and the lower range and less concentrated in the two middle ranges. Table III Performance Scores PFP SCORE ADJUSTMENT Employee Employee Employee At Employee Above Above Market Market Below Market From To Maximum 0 19 0 0 0 0 20 29 0 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 30 35 2.00% 2.50% 3.25% 4.25% 36 41 2.75% 3.25% 4.00% 6.00% 42 50 3.50% 4.00% 4.75% 6.50% Note: Currently there are 26 non‐bargaining employees below market, 40 at market, and 17 in above market. Only one non‐bargaining employees is above maximum. 3. New Positions Recommendations During the budget process, the City Manager received twelve (12) requests for new positions. While originally supporting six (6), due to budget constraints none were approved for inclusion in the budget. There are three new positions for the newly formed Economic Development Division; however these positions were outside of the departmental request process. One of those three positions currently exists in the Main Street budget and will be transferred to the City. The new positions are summarized in the table below. Amount Department Position Justification Budgeted Economic Main Street Coordination of City’s economic development efforts. Existing $71,642 Development Manager position from existing Main Street budget. Economic Marketing Coordination of City’s economic development efforts $83,853 Development Professional Economic Administrative Coordination of City’s economic development efforts $61,853 Development Assistant 162 2009 Draft Operating Budget

Pay­For­Performance Salary Information City of Dover 4. Reclassification/Upgrades Proposed for Non‐Bargaining Eight requests for reclassifications/re‐gradings and promotions of non‐bargaining positions were reviewed. Seven were included in the budget. Some involved creating a new position title, some involved creating a career ladder and some involved increasing the labor grade of a current position as a result of increased responsibilities. The Library division of Parks and Recreation is recommending that the Office Assistant II be reclassified to Administrative Assistant. The budget includes two reclassifications for the Public Services Group and a creation of a career ladder for Planners. The recommendations for reclassifications are GIS Coordinator to GIS Manager and Weed and Seed Coordinator to Community Prevention Manager. The creation of a career ladder among the planning staff is desired. This ladder is being developed for acknowledgement of obtainment of professional certifications. The ladder is being suggested for recruitment and retention, and is similar to the State of Delaware’s career ladder for Planners. The Public Utilities department is recommending the Water Production Supervisor be re‐graded however retain the same job title. The changes are summarized in the following table. Amount Department Position Justification Budgeted Secretary II to Library Performing Administrative Assistant duties $2,605 Administrative Assistant Public Services GIS Coordinator to GIS Additional responsibilities as the function expands and $3,068 Admin Manager grows Weed & Seed Coordinator Public Services to Community Prevention Reclassified to fit actual duties being performed. Planning Manager $744 Public Services Planner I Creates a progressive career path for Planners N/A Planning Public Services Senior Planner Creates a progressive career path for Planners N/A Planning Public Services Planner to Planner II Creates a progressive career path for Planners $2,303 Planning Public Utilities Water Production Reclassified to fit actual duties being performed $3,338 Water Treatment Supervisor Re‐grading 2009 Draft Operating Budget 163

Pay­For­Performance Salary Information City of Dover 5. Reclassification Re‐grading of Bargaining Positions These positions were reviewed with the IUE Union and department heads outside of negotiations. The union, as well as, the City reviewed the positions for consideration. These changes are supported by management. The changes are summarized in the table below. Amount Department Position Justification Budgeted Communications $30,261 Police Re‐grading 11 from a grade 17 to 18 Operators Police Animal Control Officer Re‐grade one from a grade 11 to 12 $1,909 Central Services Mechanic I to Mechanic II Re‐grade one from grade 15 to 19 $10,468 Courier to Central Central Services Re‐grade one from grade 12 to 13 $1,747 Mailroom Clerk Central Services Storekeeper I Re‐grade two from grade 12 to 13 $3,454 Central Services Storekeeper II Re‐grade one from grade 14 to 15 $2,198 164 2009 Draft Operating Budget