CCW MINUTES and Attachments 1-2 - Corrected 6-26-2025

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was held by video conference on June 15, 2021 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Sudler presiding. Members of Council present via video or telephone were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Mr. Hare, Mrs. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Lindell. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Contant and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Anderson requested the agenda be amended by moving Item# 6 - Presentation - Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) Master Plan to be considered first. Mr. Sudler moved for adoption of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Presentation - Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) Master Plan (Diane Laird, Executive Director, DDP) Ms. Diane Laird, Executive Director, DDP, reviewed the Downtown Dover Partnership Master Plan presentation. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Laird stated that considering the current workforce, the potential workforce gain from DSU locating downtown would be a key factor in a successful outcome, not only for entrepreneurial types that want to open small businesses, but all for other professional businesses that may arise. Mr. Neil suggested that the Downtown Dover Partnership consider including the Riverwalk previously proposed by Mr. Taylor as a part of the plan. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Laird stated that they had not sought funding from private industry or a public private collaborative. She stated that she tried to keep things condensed while looking at the plans but there was no reason not to consider private sources or public private sources in addition to the non-profit sources if they need the funding. Ms. Laird stated that it was something she would consider. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Laird stated that Delaware State University would be engaged in the visioning, planning, and exploration of investment in how the campus would engage with the whole master plan. She stated that how their involvement in terms of funding correlated to the rest of the community was worth exploring. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Laird stated that part of the plan should be assessing where a campus of social services could be located or if it should be spread out.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 2 Evaluation of Bids - Fiscal Year 2021B Street and Alley Program (Sharon Duca, Public Works Director) Ms. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of bids for the Fiscal Year 2021B Street and Alley Program. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Grassbuster’s Landscaping Company, Inc. for the City of Dover Fiscal Year 2021B Street and Alley Program, Bid #21-0039PW, for the amount of $381,083. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Duca stated that she could get information on the cost overrun by dollar amount and percentage as compared to what was proposed for previous bids that Grassbuster’s Landscaping Company, Inc. had been awarded. Mr. Boggerty suggested that going forward it may be beneficial to include whether a company had previously done work for the City and what the percentage of their overruns was in the bid and RFP packages. Mr. Matt Harline, Interim City Manager, stated that if the City included performance measures it would need to be in a system so it can be applied equally. He stated that if this information would be used to penalize companies there needed to be good metrics. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Duca stated that in terms of performance, Grassbuster’s had done a good job on various projects in the past and had completed jobs on time as well. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Duca stated that Stevenson Drive was part of the 2021 street program that was accepted by Council the night before so the plan was to have Stevenson Drive done first. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Duca stated that Public Works was trying to work on a phased in plan that would leave a significant number of trees in place by trying to work around them. She stated that they were working through that with a contractor for the 2020 program and it would come back to committee for review once they received further information on the cost and were able to ensure the ability to not disturb the trees as a part of the project. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Duca stated that as long as everything worked out with the contractor and the equipment they should be able to pave the road surface before cold weather settled in. She advised that some of the issues that would take more time were the sidewalks on the other side of the trees due to the need to develop the possibilities for routing around them and the need for various public involvement as it could affect homeowner’s properties. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to award the contract to Grassbuster’s Landscaping Company, Inc., for the City of Dover Fiscal Year 2021B Street and Alley Program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Elimination of the City Assessor’s Position (Cheryl Bundek, City Assessor) Mrs. Cheryl Bundek, City Assessor, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the elimination of the City Assessor’s position.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 3 Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Bundek stated that her biggest con for eliminating the assessor position would be the loss of a position in the department, the pro would be the cost savings to the City which would be the case if they awarded the job to the contractor or if they chose to go with the County. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Bundek stated that Human Resources was looking for a position for the employee whose position would be eliminated if the assessor’s position was eliminated and that the employee was looking at and applying for the open positions within the City. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mrs. Bundek stated that if Kent County had the revaluation, Tyler was doing that revaluation and had also done the City’s. She advised that if the City did not go with Kent County revaluations, if it chose to go with the Kent County route after the reevaluation was done, it would be in the City’s best interest because the values would be different. Mrs. Bundek noted that even if the City did a valuation in the same year, Kent County was using a different valuation software. She stated that Tyler was going to be using Patriot software, which is what Kent County currently had so there would be a different value probably between the City value and Kent County's value, which could make for appeals for whoever has the highest value between the two properties. Mrs. Bundek stated that it would not make sense to a property owner how the valuation year can be that close and maybe extremely different. She advised that the City would also have to make a judgment call on quality of home and condition of home from an assessor that is working in Kent County versus either an assessor that is working for the City or a contractor that is working for the City. Mrs. Bundek stated that her only concern if the City chose not to go with the county value was that it may incur a lot more appeals because of judgement calls between two different jurisdictions and two different software being used. She noted that the contractor cost right now was not to exceed $59,900 a year. Mayor Christiansen stated that the Assessor’s office had kept current with the assessment values of the properties within the City and he firmly believed that the City should keep the position. He noted that after the end of the Kent County Assessment the City could see if it dovetails with theirs and make the decision then. Mr. Hare noted that the City pays County taxes which covers having property assessed. He stated that he agreed with Mayor Christiansen that the position could stay vacant and be kept available while the City waits to see what the County comes up with before spending the money to do a reassessment. Mr. Sudler stated that he agreed with Mayor Christiansen and he would like to see some type of relief in regards to constituents being hit with County and City taxes simultaneously. Mayor Christiansen stated that in some areas where there is duplication of services, there is a separate service function budget. He noted that it had been considered for the City of Dover and the County over the last forty years. Mayor Christiansen advised that he did not know if it would change but it was something that should be discussed on a regular basis. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Bundek advised that the City had already signed the contract with Tyler Technologies for additional services, so they were at its disposal. She stated that they would not be needed unless asked for any contract work, so the City could use them until a decision is made. Mrs. Bundek advised that if the City’s route was to search for another assessor, they would have to be certified with the

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 4 State to be appointed as the assessor to value properties. She stated that the contractor could be utilized in the interim to value any new building permits. Mrs. Bundek stated that she, Mrs. Patricia Marney, Customer Service Director, Mr. Randy Robertson, City Manager, and Mr. Matt Harline, then Assistant City Manager, met with Mr. Mike Petit de Mange, Kent County Administrator, to discuss what the future was with the reevaluation. She advised that it was not in the settlement that the County had to do a reoccurring reassessment like the City does, but Mr. Petit de Mange stated that was what he was proposing. Mrs. Bundek stated that the first City reassessment in 2010 was just short of a million dollars and has since gone down to about one hundred thousand ($100,000) because the properties will be looked at within a five-year period, so a contractor does not have to be hired to look at every property like the whole State has to do right now. Mrs. Bundek advised that the State was going to go out and look at every property again, including the City of Dover properties. She stated that the contractor would get the information from the Planning and Inspections Department via the Tax Assessor’s administrator, they would value the properties and the Tax Assessor’s administrator would do the rest of the leg work. Mrs. Bundek noted that the way it was positioned was for the Tax Assessor’s administrator to go under customer service and be directly supervised by Mrs. Marney. She stated that the contractor would come in and probably just deal with the administrator in that aspect. Mrs. Bundek stated that if the City went with the county valuations the Tax Assessor’s administrator would send the permits to the county, the county would do all the permits and valuation and the City could just do an export. She stated that it was currently $15.00 for each export so it would probably be best to do that four times a year prior to each billing and then bill based on that information. Mrs. Bundek sated that one of the big pros for using Kent County was that there would no longer be a need for a Board of Assessment Appeal because all of the appeals would be sent directly to Kent County, who would handle all appeals to property values. Mr. Harline stated that the information from the Council retreat was used to guide the construction of the 2022 Fiscal Year Budget which did not currently include funds for a new assessor so if Council wanted to hire a new assessor in the next several months there would be a substantial increase in the budget. He stated it was also assumed that the City would be able to find a way to absorb the field assessor if the Tax Assessor position was eliminated so that position would also have to be added back into the budget as well. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mrs. Bundek stated that if the position was kept vacant to see what happened with the County before a decision was made there would be some interim ordinance changes that would need to be made. She noted that Mrs. Marney had an intern in her office that had been working on the senior citizen issue and was willing to work on the ordinance issues as well but the City would need direction on whether the Tax Assessor’s office would remain under Council or go under the City Manager and who would be supervising the one person in that position. Ms. Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, stated that she was concerned that if the assessor’s position was left vacant rather than removing the department the City would have to budget for those positions. Responding to Ms. Peddicord, Mr. Harline stated that the administrative assistant position for the Tax office was budgeted but the field assessor was not budgeted and the assessor position was only budgeted through Mrs. Bundek’s retirement. He advised that if another assessor was hired the City would be paying retirement costs, the Assessor’s costs, and the field assessor’s position that was not funded because of the increased

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 5 Tyler amounts. Mr. Harline noted that if the City did not use Tyler and instead used that position, the amount would be less, however, he did not have the actual costs at the time. Mr. Neil moved to table the discussion and bring it back at the next Council Committee of the Whole meeting with a staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. Discussion of Business License Rates (Matt Harline, Interim City Manager) Mr. Dave Hugg, Planning and Community Development Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the City of Dover business license fee structure. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hugg stated that he had not received a lot of feedback from the business community however, due to the deadline, he had not done as much direct one-on-one as he would have liked. He stated that due to the time crunch both he and Mr. Matt Harline, interim City Manager, felt that if the City were to consider raising the fee amounts they should be nominal now and a serious adjustment should come at a later date. Mr. Lindell moved to refer the discussion back to staff for continued work and to report back at a time that was convenient once the appropriate information had been gathered, including talking to the business community as well as any ordinances that may need to be done. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hugg stated that a 10-10.8% increase would yield about $150,000. He advised that the expected revenues were around $147,000. Mr. Hugg stated that they would go down a little bit in the current fiscal year but were expected to bounce back in the new fiscal year. He noted that with an increase of 10% the proposed dollar amount would be roughly $150,000. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hugg stated that the only rush was that license renewals had to be sent out by July 1st so if a change were to be made a notice would need to be included in the license renewal, otherwise the City would need to wait until the same time next year. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Harline stated that because the fees were all in Appendix F there would need to be an amendment to the ordinance. He advised that according to the Code licenses begin on August 1st and if they are not paid by August 31st a fine can be assessed for late payment so a lot of the timing is built into the Code. Mr. Harline stated that it was his understanding that it would need to be moved along pretty quickly. The motion to refer the discussion back to staff for continued work and to report back at a time that was convenient once the appropriate information had been gathered, including talking to the business community as well as any ordinances that may need to be done was unanimously carried. Police Department Executive Compensation (Thomas Johnson, Police Chief) Chief Thomas Johnson reviewed the background and analysis regarding Police Department Executive Compensation. Responding to Mr. Contant, Chief Johnson stated that the Deputy Chief was just below $124,000 and his recommendation was $135,000 which would be an increase of $11,000 for that position. He stated that if

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 6 Council was in favor of addressing the shortage in Fiscal Year 2021, his salary would increase from $139,000 to $147,000 which would be an additional $8,000. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that the compression issue was present at the time he was offered the position and was working out the details of his employment. He noted that he was going to be making less than the person he supervised and once he got a better understanding of what the salary landscape was, he requested the City provide him with a mechanism to discuss his salary. Chief Johnson advised that the Mayor was identified as his point of contact for that discussion and they had a meeting in the City prior to him signing the offer letter. He stated that at that time the mayor had a figure and he had a figure, he was trying to create a separation between ranks and a placement in market value in Delaware. Chief Johnson noted that at the time, the mayor was prepared to offer $130,000. He believed it was related to the residual funds in the Fiscal Year 2020 budget because it was a mid-budget year and there was a concern on his end, but the appendix to that conversation was, there would be 7% added in Fiscal Year 2021 to make up the difference in market value which he believed the mayor recognized at the time. Chief Johnson stated that there was some type of communication disconnect internally from the time of that meeting and he discovered the issue later in the year, which was approximately in May. He advised that at that time he was trying to position for the Deputy Chief's promotional process and had two viable candidates. Chief Johnson stated that looking at the compression issue for the published salary for Deputy Chief against where the Captains were as the most recent FOP contract was progressing, he was concerned that there would be a challenge getting one of the captains to accept the position. He advised that during that discussion with the previous City manager, it became clear that they were not aware of the 7% piece of his hire so he began the process of trying to rectify it. Responding to Mr. Lindell, Mr. Matt Harline, Interim City Manager, stated that 20 or 25,000 would not be impossible to find if the City did a property tax increase. He noted that if it was closer to a 40 or 50,000 increase total and if the City did not increase property taxes he would advise Council to look at it as a $50,000 expenditure just to be safe in terms of load for retirement, etc. Mr. Harline stated that he had not had a chance to review the information with Ms. Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer. Mr. Harline clarified that the original budget was built with a two and a half percent raise for non-bargaining and to increase that to 3% across the board for the extra half a percent would be a little over $20,000, and when the proposal for the Chief and Deputy Chief are added that is where it becomes $50,000. Mr. Lindell moved to recommend increasing the Deputy Police Chief’s salary to $135,000 and increasing the Police Chief’s salary to $147,000, as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. (City Clerk’s Office Note: During the Regular City Council meeting of June 23, 2025, Council members approved amending the June 28, 2021, Regular Council meeting minutes to include Chief Of Police Thomas Johnson’s memorandum (Attachment #2) and reflect the verbatim motion of Mr. Lindell to align with the audio recording. The amended motion is recorded below.) Mr. Lindell moved to accept Chief Johnson’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 7 Review of Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Annual Budget (Matt Harline, Interim City Manager) Mr. Matt Harline, Interim City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Annual Budget. Mr. Harline shared an action form for budget amendment options (Attachment #1). Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mayor Christiansen stated that $50,000 of his economic development budget immediately goes to the Kent Economic Partnership and the rest is used by he and Mr. Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Development for advertisements, site visits, and promotion for the virtues of the City of Dover to generate jobs. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Harline advised that the City currently had $520,000 of revenue recognized. He stated that he and Ms. Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, were pretty confident that they could say it was lost revenue directly related to COVID. Mr. Harline noted that they were continuing to review where money could and could not be expended from the COVID monies and they were pretty confident that the direct amount from the federal government for the year would be in the neighborhood of $4.3 million. He stated that he believed the Committee members already knew some of the things they were allowing the City to expend it on were things the City did not usually do but there were some opportunities to use it in things like housing, COVID vaccinations, and things like that. Mr. Harline noted that there was also some money for water and wastewater which he thought could be used but the City had not given up on efforts to secure more funding. He stated that he, Mr. Hugg, and the Mayor had met with the U.S. Treasury Department and representatives from both Senator's offices and their representatives, particularly Senator Carper, but also Senator Coons, who helped bring the Treasury to the table. Mr. Harline advised that they had learned there were possibilities for the City and ways that the City could get more money, but it would have to be through the State or the County. He stated that the other way would be if new legislation were proposed and passed in the U.S. Congress, or if there were some legal decisions saying that distribution was constitutional so basically $520,000 was all that was recognized in the 2022 budget currently. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Harline stated that he was not suggesting that the City spend the other million dollars from the real estate transfer tax on the sale of Dover Downs yet. He advised that he would like to use that million dollars to build the reserve because there were a lot of things that had been cut and he and Ms. Peddicord were not absolutely sure where the City would be at the end of Fiscal Year 2021. Mr. Harline noted that he and Ms. Peddicord would like to go back and re-analyze what the priorities were with all of the departments. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Harline stated that the $50,000 he had referenced for non-bargaining employees was separate from the Segal Water Assessment. He advised that the only thing from the Segal study that was in the budget was the recommendation to bring the supervisor in Grounds, supervisor in Streets, and some other positions up to the minimum according to the market study part of the Segal Assessment. Responding to Mr. Lindell, Mr. Harline stated that when the COPS Grant was adopted, the City assumed in its model that there would be a one cent increase in property tax for the current year and another half cent increase in Fiscal Year 2023 to cover the cost for the five additional police officers. Responding to Mr. Lindell, Mr. Harline stated that regardless of what is done in the current year between the cameras and other items, the commitment would be up to $664,000 next year.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 8 Mr. Sudler stated for the record that Council needed to continue to work on their statesmanship behavior and attitude when conducting the business of the public. Responding to Mrs. Arndt, Mr. Harline stated that if a constituent owned a $250,000 home and the City put a one cent property tax for $100, the cost of the increase would be $25 a year for a $250,000 house. Mrs. Arndt stated that she would ask Council to look at a one cent increase versus a two cent increase. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Peddicord stated that there were a lot of unknowns and a lot of cuts being considered. She advised that the cost of a one cent tax increase equated to about $352,000 and a two cent increase equated to about $700,000, which she did not think the tax payers would notice significantly. She stated that she agreed with a lot of the statements being made about not being able to count on one-time money because it was unknown if it would continue and there may be a decrease going forward. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Peddicord stated that the trash fee, water rates, and other increases already built into the budget were the general fund budget, which was different. She stated that there were unknown expenses that were not recognized yet. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Harline stated that purchases were made with the assumption of raising taxes one cent or one and a half cents to cover the cost in Fiscal Year 2022 and 2023. Mr. Rocha moved to move the budget forward as amended by Staff to include a one cent tax increase, to put $25,000 into the Economic Development Budget, and to include the recommendation to have a 3% increase for non-bargaining employees and to have equity with the Chief and Deputy Chief’s positions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Hare, Arndt, Rocha, Lindell, Sudler, Shevock, Contant), three (3) no (Anderson, Boggerty, Taylor), and one (1) absent (Neil). Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Mr. Taylor moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Roy Sudler Jr. Council President RS/MR/tm Attachments Attachment #1 - Budget Amendment Options Action Form Attachment #2 - Police Department Executive Compensation (Added per the motion of Council on June 23, 2025)

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 06/15/2021 ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole - Legislative, Finance & Administration DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager DATE SUBMITTED: 6/15/21 PREPARED BY: Matthew Harline, Interim City Manager SUBJECT: Budget Amendment Options REVIEWED BY: Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer APPROVALS: Council Committee of the Whole EXHIBITS: None EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: n/a AMOUNT BUDGETED: TBD TIMETABLE: Upon Council approval of the FY2021 – 22 Budget RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approving a minimal Property Tax increase to maintain Public Service levels The proposed budget provided to the City Council on May 27, 2021 for the FY2021/22 Fiscal Year included a proposal for a Property Tax increase of $0.055/$100 of assessed value. At the direction of the City Council possible cuts were proposed totaling $1.9 million, enough to eliminate the $0.055/$100 Property Tax increase. Council recommended cuts totalling enough to allow a balanced budget with a 2-cent property Tax increase. Within the last week the City has learned that a large transfer tax payment has been received - $2,160,000. Council has asked what options the staff recommends for this additional money, including a complete avoidance of a Property Tax increase. On the following page is a spreadsheet/chart with six columns. The first two include the item description and the Department associated with the item. The next four columns are as follows: • Staff cuts: Proposed cuts made by the staff prior to the development of the budget document. • Council cuts: Proposed cuts at the meetings on June 2nd and June 3rd • Spending approved: Items that survived both rounds of cuts • Additional approval(s): Additional reductions in revenue if Council recommends removing the $0.02 tax increase and/or suggest other operational expenditures, or capital expenditures to be earmarked with the receipt of the $2million transfer tax. Keep in mind FY22 costs for the five additional officers plus tasers & body cameras will cost the City $379,800 in excess of the COPS grant revenues, and City share in FY2022/23 will be $664,500 (a $285,000 increase from FY22/FY23). The budget reductions requested at the June 2- 3 work sessions reduce the General Fund capital expenditures from $6.37 million to $5.17 million, and the additional transfer of $1 million from the Electric Fund is still in place. Moreover, the final cost to the General Fund for the Tropical Storm Isaias that are not covered by FEMA are in the range of $120,000. The final FY2021 budget balance estimate, is less certain this year than in past years. Staff strongly discourages adding more than half of the $2.1million transfer tax receipt to the proposed FY22 beginning budget balance.

Action Form 15 June 2021 - CCW Proposed Budget Amendments Available to spend $ 355,500 Spending Additional Description Department Staff Cuts Council cuts approved approved $ (765,000.00) $ (1,774,100.00) $ 786,000 No Property Tax Increase $ 704,000 3% (v. 2,5%) NB raise $ 20,500 Moving Expense City Manager $ 20,000 Legal Expenses City Manager 50,000 Special Projects HR 50,000 25% Economic Development Mayor 25,000 Delete van replacement Recreation 31,000 Delete 2 FTE Customer Service $ 97,800 LAN Analyst deleted IT 37,500 Subtotal Admin/Rec $ 273,800.00 Reduce inc to Fire Fire 1,000 50% buffer for Ambulance Contract Life Safety 10,000 Knox Box Update Life Safety 23,200 2 Trucks Code Enforcement 50,300 40% cut Demolition Code Enforcement 100,000 Defer hiring 4 officers 6 mos Police 199,000 OT and Ed Asst Police 75,000 Tahoe Police 62,600 Subtotal Public Safety $ 322,100.00 Remote Access Facilities Maint. 25,000 City Hall Improvements Facilities Maint. 50,000 Craftsperson (2nd additional) Facilities Maint. 59,000 Craftsperson defer 6 mos Facilities Maint. 29,500 Warehouse Improvements Procurement & Inv 90,000 River Road (MLK - US13) Streets 380,000 Townshend (US13 - End) Streets 421,500 Kent Ave N Alley Streets 7,500 Kent Ave S Alley Streets 9,000 Asphalt Hot Box Streets 43,000 Replace 2000 Backhoe Streets 125,000 Replace2001 Dump Truck Streets 156,000 Cyclomedia Software Streets 48,000 Replace Automated Truck Sanitation 290,400 Replace Vac Truck Stormwater 364,000 Mirror Lake Drainage Basin Stormwater 350,000 Reduce Mulch Process Costs Stormwater 44,800 Subtotal Public Works/City Buildings $ 1,943,200.00 pg. 2

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 06/15/2021 MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Roy Sudler, City of Dover Council President Honorable Members of Dover City Council From: Chief Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Department CC: Mayor Robin Christiansen, Deputy Chief David Spicer Date: 6/11/2021 Subject: Police Department Executive Compensation Council Members; As requested by the Council President following a recent conference on this topic, I offer this summation related to the salary agreement at the time of my hire and a recommendation to address the recurring challenge of salary compression, and market value, for the positions of both the Chief of Police and the Deputy Chief of Police. As it relates to the former, at the beginning of FY 21, I did not receive the salary adjustment that was negotiated at the time of my appointment. I was promised a 7% increase and only received the 2% value provided to all non-bargaining employees on July 1, 2020. In relation to the latter, recent FOP contract agreements and a lack of adjustments to comparable market value have gradually led to a serious lag in the salary status of both Chief Officer positions. In May of 2020, when Major Stump chose to retire, I discussed the salary challenge for the position of Deputy Chief with the former City Manager, Mrs. Mitchell. My goal was to resolve it prior to offering the job to either Captain Bernat or Captain Spicer. It was during this conversation that I discovered she was unaware of the salary agreement I had reached with Mayor Christiansen. I immediately contacted the Mayor and requested he attempt to resolve the matter as soon as possible. Of course the combination of the ongoing COVID-related State of Emergency, and the civil unrest that began in late May, made a quick resolution impossible. In the end, the City policy of “5% at the time of promotion” got us through the critical moment when selecting Captain Spicer as the new Deputy Chief. However, salary compression resumed again just 6 months later, and at the current time, the Deputy Chief rank is not financially attractive considering the options available to the Captains that might fill it. The same is now true for the rank of Chief even after honoring the initial agreement.

To conclude the matter of my FY 21 salary, I would offer that Mayor Christiansen has confirmed to several members of Council that 7% was promised to me on July 1, 2020 and that my original paperwork in February would reflect the starting figure of $130,000 due to budget constraints. I would respectfully request that I be issued a check to cover the residual 5% owed me for service in FY 21. The difference between $132,600 and $139,100 is $6,500. The current labor agreement with the FOP has a salary schedule that calls for 3% increases at the beginning of the next three budget years. To illustrate the supervisory scale, the average salary separation for each supervisory promotion is roughly 8.5% Presuming that non-bargaining employees receive 3% as well, the promotion from Captain to Deputy Chief has a separation of only 2.85% going into FY 22. If the non-bargaining employees receive less, the compression continues to increase. In discussions with the Mayor and several members of Council I outlined the challenges of asking a Captain to leave the security of the bargaining unit, contract benefits, and access to year-round extra- duty income to assume a more responsible role with no financial distinction truly reflective of the rank. Similar distinction between Deputy Chief and Chief was discussed. The issue of market value was also raised for both positions within the Delaware Law Enforcement landscape. The Chief Officers of the Dover PD also function in a State-level capacity representing Dover’s interests on issues that impact Delaware Law Enforcement. Dover is considered part of the “Big 4” as it relates to sworn agencies in the State. The other three are the Delaware State Police, the New Castle County Police, and the City of Wilmington Police. Like the other three, the Dover Chief of Police is a voting member of the boards that address Training, Certification, Accreditation, and Grant funding. Moreover, we are in permanent task force relationships with State and Federal law enforcement partners to address challenges unique to the larger agencies. To resolve the current situation, I would suggest the following action plan. 1. Break the cycle of the Captain salaries encroaching upon the Chief and Deputy Chief Salaries by adopting a standard separation between executive ranks. 2. Beginning in FY 22, create a 9% separation between Captain and Deputy Chief. This 0.45% above the average separation but less than the two largest. The 0.45% will account for the clothing, educational and other incentives lost with the promotion to Deputy Chief. On July 1, 2021, the Captain base salary will be a few dollars shy of $124,000. 9% would set the Deputy Chief salary a little over $135,000 and make it comparable to the Deputy Chief compensation found in Newark. 3. Beginning in FY 22, for all the same reasons, create a 9% separation between the Deputy Chief and Chief. That would take the Chief to a little over $147,300 annually and the position would then be proportional to comparable major Chief salaries in Delaware. Additional illustrative date can be found in the attached appendix and further details can be provided if it is the pleasure of Council. Respectfully submitted,

Police Department Executive Compensation – Appendix 1. Salary separation values contained within the DPD FOP Collective Bargaining Agreement a. 9.3% upon promotion to Master Corporal $91,947.63 to $98,606.66 b. 9.6% upon promotion to Sergeant $100,850.46 to $107,051.07 c. 6.5% upon promotion to Lieutenant $110,597.72 to $113,975.50 d. 8.8% upon promotion to Captain $120,344.99 to $123,963.59 e. 8.55% is the average increase across all four supervisory ranks 2. $123,963.59 is the Captain salary effective 1 July 2021 3. $123,884.80 is the current Deputy Chief salary with the FY 22 figure unknown 4. $126,981.92 - $127,601.34 represents the projected range for the Deputy Chief should the City increase non-bargaining salaries between 2.5% and 3.0% leaving a rank separation between 2.38% and 2.85% 5. The Newark Police is routinely identified as the closest comparable to Dover Police a. $131,627.00 is the FY 21 compensation for a Newark Police Dept. Deputy Chief b. The compensation for the Newark Chief is approximately $10,000.00 more c. The Newark PD contract is due for re-negotiation in the coming weeks and a raise in pay is anticipated at all levels in January. d. A 2-3% raise would move the Newark Deputy Chief to $134,259.54-$135,575.81 6. Should the Council look favorably upon the proposed salary adjustments for both positions, the Chief’s salary would be proportional to its place in the State. a. Beginning in the next budget cycle, the other three Delaware large-agency Chiefs will receive compensation packages that range between $30,000 & $65,000 more than the Dover Chief. This is appropriate due to organizational size, service area, and populations served. b. The Dover Chief will earn only slightly more than their peer in Newark. This could also be viewed as appropriate based on the concept of organizational size, service area, and populations served as well as the additional variable of service to the law enforcement regulatory functions across the State of Delaware. c. A 4 - 5% cost of living differential was considered during this assessment (salary.com 4%) & (smartasset.com 5%)