REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on October 10, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Mr. Pitts was absent.
Council staff members present were Police Chief Horvath, Ms. Russell, Mrs. Mitchell, Deputy Fire Chief Osika, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. Green, and Mayor Speed.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Williams declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
Mr. David Anderson, 217 Cecil Street, addressed members concerning a parking space on Governors Avenue near Fulton and Cecil Streets. He noted that the space is located too close to the corner, making it difficult to see oncoming traffic. Mr. Anderson also advised members that the Human Relations Commission has sent correspondence to City Council with recommendations regarding crime and felonious activities at certain properties. He requested Council to review the recommendations since these activities are effecting the quality of life for City residents.
Mr. Eric O’Brien, 30 North New Street, advised members that there has been excellent progress in the New Street area; however, the situation is still almost intolerable because of strangers loitering for hours. He requested Mr. Salters to share his concerns with Senator Carper, who has established the homeowner’s initiative for the area. Mr. O’Brien stated that he feels there is racial intimidation in his neighborhood; therefore, the police are not enforcing the laws as actively as they should. Mr. O’Brien requested that his concerns be addressed at a Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee.
The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and unanimously carried.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent).
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2005
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of September 26, 2005 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Speed.
PROCLAMATION - HALLOWEEN TRICK-OR-TREAT (OCTOBER 31, 2005)
The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record:
WHEREAS, the children of the City of Dover enjoy the fun and festivities associated with the observance of the Halloween Trick-or-Treat custom of traveling with friends and family going from door to door in their neighborhood, displaying their costumes, and gathering treats; and
WHEREAS, parents are urged to join in the festivities by accompanying their children throughout their journeys in celebrating Halloween Trick-or-Treat; and
WHEREAS, residents are requested to indicate their willingness to welcome children by keeping their porch or exterior lights on and that youngsters call only on homes so lighted; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Dover has deemed it advisable to observe the celebration of Halloween Trick-or-Treat on Monday, October 31, 2005 between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, STEPHEN R. SPEED, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, do hereby proclaim that the Halloween Trick-or-Treat observance be held on the 31st day of October 2005, between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. in the City of Dover and urge all residents, both young and old, to make this a happy and safe occasion for our children.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 700-708 FOREST STREET AND 12-16 LINCOLN STREET, OWNED BY FRANK R. MOORE, PAUL T. MOORE, PAUL T. MOORE, JR., PAUL T. MOORE TRUSTEE, AND AIKO MOORE TRUSTEE
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 700-708 Forest Street and 12-16 Lincoln Street, owned by Frank R. Moore, Paul T. Moore, Paul T. Moore, Jr., Paul T. Moore Trustee, and Aiko Moore Trustee. These properties are currently zoned IO (Institutional and Office) and the proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial).
Planner's Review
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit 1).
Mr. Ruane reminded members that the City would like to eventually see the property upgraded as part of the west Dover development plan. Mr. DePrima advised members that the Moore family has indicated that they may wish to be a part of the future redevelopment; however, they are concerned that the IO zone would prohibit some of the existing uses if their tenants were to move out.
Public Hearing
Council President Williams declared the hearing open.
Mr. Frank Moore, 747 Westfield Road, Moorestown, New Jersey, stated that the IO zone is not conducive to this area at the present time. He stated that he was concerned that they would lose their use if a tenant were to move out.
Council President Williams declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sadusky and by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent), Council adopted the following ordinance: (The First Reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of August 22, 2005.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 700-708 FOREST STREET AND 12-16 LINCOLN STREET
WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from IO (Institutional and Office) to C-3 (Service Commercial)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from IO to C-3 on that property located at 700-708 Forest Street and 12-16 Lincoln Street, owned by Frank R. Moore, Paul T. Moore, Paul T. Moore, Jr., Paul T. Moore Trustee, and Aiko Moore Trustee.
ADOPTED: OCTOBER 10, 2005
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima stated that the Clarence Street extension could effect this property either positively by increasing its value or it could be needed as part of the right-of-way.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 26, 2005
The Utility Committee met on September 26, 2005 with Chairman Carey presiding.
Briefing by Public Works Director - Wastewater Infiltration Issue
Mr. Koenig, Public Works Director, provided a presentation on the Wastewater Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) problem, including the current status and related expenses, perceived causes, possible remedies and future costs to remedy, and a strategy and implementation plan for remediation.
Mr. Koenig noted that inflow occurs when rainwater is misdirected into the sanitary sewer system instead of the storm sewers. He stated that a significant percentage of inflow comes from rain leaders and sump pumps that are improperly connected to the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Koenig advised members that infiltration occurs when ground water seeps into the sanitary sewer system through cracks or leaks in sewer pipes, which can be caused by age related deterioration, loose joints, damage, or root infiltration. He stated that the City’s fees paid to Kent County for wastewater treatment amounted to 32% more flow than what customers were billed.
Mr. Koenig recommended a 7-Point Plan of Action which included enacting a sanitary sewer ordinance, smoke and dye testing, televising sewer lines, home-to-home inspections, manhole inspections, repair and replacement of infrastructure, and notifying and educating the public.
Mr. Koenig stated that in FY05, staff budgeted $75,000 for I & I work. He noted that between $8,000 and $9,000 had been spent on consulting work to begin the preparation of contracts for televising the lines and smoke testing. Mr. Koenig noted that the FY06 budget also contains $75,000 for I & I. The FY07 budget will include replacement of the camera equipment and a small van to transport the equipment. Mrs. Mitchell, Finance Director, advised members that the I & I issue will have a serious impact on the budget if it is not corrected. Mr. Ritter suggested that staff may be able to obtain a State or Federal grant for the cameras and/or smoke testing.
Mr. Ruane requested staff to include a time-frame for remediation, performance measures, and more detail of the overall Inflow and Infiltration challenge in their next update.
The committee took no action.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent).
SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met on September 27, 2005 with Chairman Hogan presiding.
Discussions with Secretary Hayward - City of Dover Transportation Projects
During their Regular Meeting of August 23, 2005, members approved a letter inviting Secretary Hayward to attend the September 27, 2005 Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Meeting to discuss the City’s prioritization projects, their status, timetable, and how the City may assist in achieving results.
Secretary Hayward provided an in-depth explanation of the financial situation that the Department of Transportation now finds itself in, as provided in his July 18, 2005 letter to municipalities. He advised members that Delaware's rapid growth, along with construction costs escalating at a rate much higher than the consumer price index and traditional funding sources, has strained the State's resources. Secretary Hayward also advised members that DelDOT has not yet received anticipated federal highway funds, which is typically $125M.
Secretary Hayward stated that he advised the General Assembly of the need to replenish the Transportation Trust Fund, which is funded through gas taxes, tolls, motor vehicle fees, and federal grants, in order to continue transportation projects. The Administration and the General Assembly compiled a list of projects that were affordable this year with the existing revenue and a one-time General Fund appropriation. They then added construction based on increases in various sources of revenue, including a toll increase on I-95, which was approved by the General Assembly.
The task force created by the Governor to look into DelDOT’s financial situation has concluded that, at a minimum, the department will need approximately $150M in new revenue beginning next fiscal year and the revenue will have to increase over time to recognize the diminished value of the purchasing dollar. DelDOT has temporarily delayed over $280M in projects due to lack of funding.
During the committee meeting, Mr. Ruane requested a project list specific to the City of Dover, including projects which were originally appropriated, what had been encumbered, and the status of that specific project. He noted that, although the signalization project was authorized in June 2004 for FY05 and materials have been purchased, it has been delayed until FY07. Secretary Hayward noted that the signalization project was delayed since it was still in the design phase. If a contract had been signed, the work would have proceeded. He noted that the Governor’s Avenue project and the signalization project would be on the list for recommendation to the General Assembly. Secretary Hayward stated that the re-alignment of Wyoming Avenue will include a right-of-way donation by the project developer, as well as cash, which will hopefully qualify for matching Federal funds and enable completion of the project.
Mr. Hogan requested suggestions for ways the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee could assist in having the City’s priorities addressed. Secretary Hayward suggested reviewing the City of Dover project list to determine the authorization amounts, amount encumbered, and determine a new estimated cost of completion. Once that is done, the list should be prioritized. He also suggested that members impress upon the members of the General Assembly the importance of the problem and the need for action. Mr. Hogan stated that he would work with Mr. Laing on the project list.
Representative Nancy Wagner agreed that DelDOT is in financial trouble. She noted that the General Assembly was not made aware of the situation until the end of the session. Representative Wagner advised members that, had they known the seriousness of the problem, they may not have voted for a reduction of gross receipts tax. She also stated that she relies upon the Department of Transportation for guidance on what needs to be done and the General Assembly needs clear cut information in a timely manner in order to make decisions.
Mr. Hogan stated that it would be the goal of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee to make the State aware of the City’s transportation concerns and priorities in a timely manner.
The committee took no action.
Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Section 106-17-Truck Routes
In conjunction with the July 12, 2004 adoption of an ordinance prohibiting trucks from utilizing engine compression brakes in the limits of the City of Dover, the City Manager, Mr. DePrima, requested the Police Department to begin the process of posting advisory signs on those truck routes entering the City and appropriately advising the public, particularly trucking firms located in Dover.
Staff worked with DelDOT, who offered two (2) options, as follows: 1) Order and purchase signs at expense to the City and subsequently have Dover Public Works place the signs and be responsible for maintaining them; or 2) Follow the lead of Smyrna and Seaford and have an Engineering Study done by DelDOT, followed by enacting a City of Dover ordinance establishing truck routes in Dover, followed by a State Resolution. This would enable DelDOT to purchase the signs, and erect them just outside the City at the designated truck routes. DelDOT would also be responsible for maintaining the signs.
Members reviewed a proposed ordinance, prepared by Deputy City Solicitor Pepper, amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles - by adding a new section 106-17 - Truck Routes. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance.
During the committee meeting, Mr. Ritter expressed concern that State Street was a proposed designated truck route since parts of the street are brick-faced. It was his feeling that truck traffic would damage the bricks. Mr. Ritter also noted that Governors Avenue could serve as the truck route with State Street being for local delivery only. He suggested striking (b)(8) State Street. Mr. Koenig advised members that State Street was included on the list since it is designated as State Alternate Route 113.
The committee recommended adoption of the ordinance amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles - by adding a new section 106-17 - Truck Routes, as amended by striking “State Street”, noting that State Street could be added to the list if staff finds it to be necessary.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent) (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting)..
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent).
GARRISON TRACT COMMISSION REPORT - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT
Council President Williams thanked members of the Garrison Tract Commission for their service, noting that they would not be discharged until their recommendations have been reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee.
Mr. Slavin moved to acknowledge receipt of the Garrison Tract Commission Report and to refer the report to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee for its review during their Regular Meeting of November 15, 2005. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
REVISED MONTHLY BUDGET REPORTS - JULY AND AUGUST 2005
By motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Salters, the Revised Monthly Budget Reports for July and August 2005 were accepted by consent agenda.
EVALUATION OF BIDS - PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
As part of the City of Dover Parks & Recreation Department's Capital Investments Plan this year, staff is replacing the playground equipment in Williams Park and will install a unit for two (2) to five (5) year olds in The Hamlet Park. This equipment purchase is part of the Playground Equipment Replacement Program that the Department has been implementing over the past three years. The equipment being purchased was put out for bid using the purchasing policy (3.3J), which permits the Department to use other government contracts to purchase materials. For this project, the Department is using the US Communities bid information for evaluation of playground equipment.
Staff recommended awarding the bid to GameTime c/o West Recreation, Inc., Queenstown, Maryland, for the purchase and installation of equipment/safety surfacing for Williams Park and the Hamlet Park playgrounds in the amount of $49,961.47.
Mr. Slavin moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan.
Responding to questions of members, Mr. DePrima stated that US Communities is a nationwide cooperative purchasing organization, of which the City is a member. He stated that, historically, the prices are much better through cooperative purchasing. Mr. Salters requested staff to compare prices to ensure that they were getting a fair price.
The motion to award the bid to GameTime c/o West Recreation, Inc., Queenstown, Maryland, for the purchase and installation of equipment/safety surfacing for Williams Park and the Hamlet Park playgrounds in the amount of $49,961.47 was carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent).
EVALUATION OF BIDS - CITY HALL SECURITY MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
The City, in its 2005/06 Budget, anticipated security improvements to City Hall, as well as a new employee identification card system. Although $30,000 was included in the General Fund budget, staff also applied for full Homeland Security Grant Funds from the State of Delaware for the proposed program and an expanded program. In late July, staff was notified of being awarded a total of $90,633.54. Staff advised members that some funds were from an FY 03 & FY 04 appropriation which would require an expedited expenditure by October 30, 2005 and November 30, 2005 respectively.
This proposal and the grant funding is to provide and install all components to allow for the implementation of a Security Management and Employee Identification System.
To accommodate the need to expedite this expenditure, staff began a search for vendors who were already contracted with the City or other governments in Delaware and found that ADVANTECH provided the security systems for the Police Department, Administrative Services at Weyandt Hall, and the current security system in City Hall. To expedite the purchase, bids were not solicited and a contract was negotiated as provided for under Section 3.16 (C) of the City's Purchasing Policy. In addition to other City of Dover facilities, ADVANTECH has the following customers: Port of Wilmington, DEMA (Delaware Emergency Management Agency), DTI (Delaware Department of Technology and Information), DMV (Delaware Department of Motor Vehicles), DART First State, and Kent County Emergency Operations Center.
Staff recommended entering into a contract with ADVANTECH, Inc. to purchase the City Hall Security Management and Employee Identification System, with an 18-month maintenance contract, for $89,925.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent).
EVALUATION OF BIDS -TRAILER MOUNTED GENERATOR
The City of Dover Department of Public Works has secured grant funding for the purchase of one (1) trailer mounted generator that could power segments of the water production system during periods of extended power outages should they occur. Originally, this purchase was intended to be part of a state-wide generator purchase through DEMA; however, it was recently determined that the sub-grant process should be used to facilitate this purchase. Once the sub-grant application and award was completed, staff prepared a bid package and solicited sealed bids through the City's Purchasing Agent.
Based on a review of the bids, staff recommended awarding the bid to the lowest bidder, Fidelity Engineering, Corp., in the amount of $42,000.00 for the purchase of one (1) trailer mounted generator (200KW). The City of Dover must purchase this equipment using City funds and will be reimbursed by DEMA in accordance with the grant guidelines. Funds should be reimbursed to the City of Dover within four-six weeks from the date of delivery of the equipment.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent).
OVERLAND CONTRACTING INC. - SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT (EPC CONTRACT)
Mr. DePrima advised members that the City reached a settlement agreement with Overland Contracting, Inc. (subsidiary of Black & Veatch) in the amount of $275,000. He stated that the original amount requested for cost overruns related to weather delays, issues over earth moving, and completion bonuses related to the 230KV project was in excess of $800,000. Mr. DePrima noted that they agreed upon a settlement in the amount of $275,000.
Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the contract, seconded by Mr. Carey and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Pitts absent).
COUNCIL PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE TO CECIL WILSON - CONCERNS OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 OPEN FORUM
Council President Williams advised members that she had responded to Mr. Wilson regarding his comments made in response to telephone calls he received from concerned citizens. She noted that the item was placed on the agenda since Mr. Wilson indicated that his remarks were those of citizens that had contacted him; therefore, the only means possible to respond is to provide for an opportunity to do so publicly. The City Clerk read the following into the record:
“Dear Mr. Wilson:
Thank you for speaking during the Open Forum Segment of the Regular Council Meeting on September 26, 2005 regarding your concerns of the Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) and African American City employees and citizens.
After having the opportunity to further review your concerns, as well as the copy of the complaint you provided, dated September 8, 2005, that was submitted to the Delaware State Human Relations Commission Director and Members, I offer the following responses in the order in which your concerns were presented:
• To respond to an investigation of the DHRC, I am confident that scrutiny by the Delaware State Human Relations Commission will reveal that there has been no miscarriage and I actually welcome the review by that body.
• To respond to your concerns about African Americans employed by the City of Dover, I would request further information, specific by example, to understand your concern.
• To respond to your comment that our former City Assessor was not evaluated properly, please be advised that this employee was evaluated the same as all other Council Appointed employees. As you may already know, all members of Council are provided with periodic evaluations for each Council appointed position and all Council members are asked to include their comments and a rating for each category.
• To respond to your accusation that the City of Dover has created an internal hiring job description for an internal city employee in order to fill the new Assessor position, this could not be farther from the truth. There is only one job description for the City Assessor which was originally developed by the Public Administration Service (PAS) and approved by City Council in 2003. Recently, there was an amendment made to that job description, which included the following: “Requires an IAAO (International Association of Assessing Officers) accreditation or ability to acquire that accreditation within 1 year (or an equivalent documented accreditation or certification)”. This clearly does not provide for a current city employee to be hired as the new City Assessor because no city employee holds that accreditation or equivalent. As a result, Council initiated a regional/national search, effective August 19, 2005. Assessment services continue to be provided by a consulting firm while the search for an Assessor with proper accreditation continues.
• To respond to your comments about the City of Dover Police Department, there has been no devaluing of the requirements and/or standards to permit African American police officers to be promoted without merit. Nothing has changed in this area, nor do I believe that these officers would engage in the behavior that you have suggested in your comments. These officers are deserving and have been duly promoted based on their performance as members of law enforcement for our City. I, therefore, on their behalf, request an apology because it is my belief that your comments about the City’s policing efforts are inaccurate and even worse, inconsiderate and insensitive to the work and dedication provided by these officers. Again, I welcome an investigation, if deemed necessary.
• To respond to the “inappropriate communication of our police officers”, I simply do not know what you are talking about and therefore request further clarification with specific examples in order to understand what you are saying.
In summary, Mr. Wilson, it is evident that most certainly there is a lack of communication and understanding. Your remarks regarding the DHRC, the treatment of African American employees, the evaluation of our previous City Assessor, the job description for a new City Assessor, and the promotion of African American police officers are simply not accurate. The fact that you are considering or believe that they are true only reinforces my belief that we do, indeed, need to sit down and talk. If this is not suitable for you, then again, I welcome a review of any of your concerns about the City of Dover and look forward to the presentation and distribution of the results to all our citizens.
Please feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss these or any other matters further.
Sincerely,
Beverly C. Williams
Council President”
Mr. Ruane commended Council President Williams for her thorough and well reasoned response. He noted that it is sometimes difficult to refrain from responding to some comments made during the open forum. Mr. Ruane suggested that members may want to change the current practice of not responding to comments, especially when it involves an egregious situation.
Mr. Ruane advised members that there was a letter to editor in the October 5, 2005 Dover Post from Daniel McKeown, President of the FOP Lodge #15. Mr. Ruane read an excerpt of the letter and requested that the full text be included in the minutes of this meeting, as follows:
“I felt compelled as the president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 15 to respond to remarks made at a recent city council open forum. These remarks were subsequently published in the Dover Post on Wednesday, September 28. As President of Lodge No. 15 I represent Dover Police Officers. During the council’s open forum, Mr. Cecil Wilson, who is the former Central Delaware Branch President of the NAACP, made comments regarding minorities and the Dover Police Department. Although he made many comments, there was on comment that really offended me, all minority supervisors at the Dover Police Department and the department as a whole.
Mr. Wilson was quoted in the Dover Post as saying “Unqualified black officers are being unfairly promoted as a means to keep them quiet.” I would first ask Mr. Wilson to come forward with the information and meet with me as the FOP President so we could attempt to resolve this issue. However, in personally speaking with every supervisory minority officer in the department, there is one common sentiment regarding Mr. Wilson’s comment.
They were outraged. The minority supervisors at the Dover Police Department underwent the same rigorous promotional process as any other officer. This includes performance evaluations, a written exam and an oral board examination. The officers promoted scored higher than their counterparts and were subsequently promoted as positions became available. As you can see, a person’s race or sex does not play a part in the process. The minority supervisors also stated that they feel more than capable handling their current positions and in no way are “unqualified.” As to the statement “keeping them quiet,” none of the minority supervisors are aware of what is being “kept quiet” or what Mr. Wilson is referring to . All were unsure as to how Mr. Wilson is seeking to “Advance Colored People” as his former title implies. If anything, he offended hard working and deserving minority supervisors and all minority officers striving to advance themselves and their careers. It is clear his statements are not based on fact and are not the sentiment of minority officers in the Dover Police Department. The FOP respectfully requests a formal apology from Mr. Wilson on behalf of the aggrieved officers and the Dover Police Department as a whole.”
Mr. Salters stated that the citizens of Dover look to the minority leadership in the community, including himself and Mr. Pitts, and he has no knowledge of any charges that have been made by Mr. Wilson and he would welcome an investigation, as the Council President suggested, to search out any improprieties in the City’s procedures. He also requested Mr. Wilson to come forward with any information that he may have, in writing, so that it can be addressed immediately. Mr. Salters thought that it was necessary that clarification be made on all of the issues so that there would be no misunderstandings of the City’s hiring and promotion procedures. He stated that, if the accusations are true, they should be investigated thoroughly and the results printed for the public.
RESPONSE TO COUNCIL COMMENTS OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 - SALARY INCREASES FOR COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND CITY MANAGER EMPLOYEES
Mr. DePrima advised members that, in response to a recent newspaper article, he wrote a letter to Councilman Ritter dated October 6, 2005. Mr. DePrima paraphrased his letter as follows:
“Dear Councilman Ritter:
To accuse a career public official of collusion is a serious matter that should not be taken or given lightly. For over four years since you won your office, I have silently taken unwarranted and baseless accusations about my performance and my integrity. I have also silently watched you do the same to others. However, there comes a time when an employee must defend himself--a time when falsehoods must be revealed--a time when an accuser’s lack of knowledge must be exposed. When referring to Senator McCarthy’s baseless accusations, Edward R. Murrow said, “No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.” My silence is not going to be your accomplice.
You accused me and the Council President of collusion resulting in hidden salary increases. Had you thoroughly reviewed the draft budget, you would have seen that the pay for performance had its own section, and that the percentages for proposed salary increases were clearly presented on page 164 of the draft budget. As you know, the draft budget was publicly discussed over four nights. During one of those nights, I also publicly discussed the City’s pay-for-performance policy through a PowerPoint presentation devoted solely to this policy.
You accused the Council President and I of changing the past system of voting on salary increases so they would be hidden. City Council never acted on individual salaries except those of the five Council Appointees, and there was no consistency in how those increases were awarded to the appointees. The pay-for-performance system we have now in place is the first system that uniformly applied to all non-bargaining employees and this, too, was discussed in open session.
You accused the Council President of giving me “carte blanche” over salary increases, yet you know that the pay-for-performance system ties salary increases to evaluation scores. You also know that City Council does the evaluations for the five Council Appointees, and the Mayor does the evaluation for the Chief of Police, and each supervisor does their subordinates’ evaluations. Therefore, how could you possibly state that I and the Council President have control over salaries? Out of the 80 non-bargaining employees, I have responsibility for doing eight evaluations.
You stated that the pay-for-performance system is not working. As evidence, you stated that salaries are increasing exponentially. Where is your proof? In fact, the information provided to you by Mrs. Mitchell showed that the overall salary increases of the past three years increased 3.44%, then increased by 5.72%, and then went down to 4.92%. It is very important to point out that in those increases were promotions, so this does not necessarily total the Pay-for-Performance system–there were promotions and increases. The fact that any non-bargaining employee who had a below-market salary and increased his/her evaluation score would appear to have been exponential growth because of improved performance and a greater differential given to below-market employees this past fiscal year. All of this was clearly presented in the budget. There is absolutely no truth to your statements that the pay for performance policy has allowed between 13% and 20% increases for some employees over the past two years. Only five out of 80 employees received raises in that amount over two years and they are all due to promotions to jobs with more responsibility. Are we going to deny our employees who work very hard on their responsibilities promotions or higher wages?
You stated that the pay-for-performance system is not working. Again, as evidence you stated that people in the “buddy system” and “higher ups” are getting bigger increases than others. You used my increase as an example. In reality, I was only one of 30 employees two years ago to receive 4.75% increase and one of seven employees to receive a 7% increase. This percentage increase, which was in the budget, that I received is the same percentage increase all non-bargaining employees with commendable evaluation scores received if their salaries were below market. My score was derived by those City Council members who participated in my evaluation and I want to thank them for that commendable evaluation; I worked very hard for it. Unfortunately, you chose not to participate. My salary is below market and is still less than the former City Manager’s set pay was five years ago. In 2006, salary increases for the 13 department heads averaged 5.23%. The 13 least paid non-bargaining employees received 4.78%--less than a one-half percent difference between the two groups. So, where is the evidence that people are in the “buddy system” and that the “higher ups” are getting higher pays than anyone else in the system? Again, you failed to point out that the non-bargaining salaries this past fiscal year is actually 4.38% less than the prior year, and these are numbers that you were provided by Mrs. Mitchell.
What evidence do you have of secret meetings? Annual evaluations for the five Council Appointees were always done and have been legally done in executive session as part of their performance evaluation. During these meetings, performance is discussed; salary is not. Conducting a performance review is one of the most important jobs a Council member has. You did not participate this year. By not participating in this process, you failed the system; the system itself, is not a failure—it is in fact a success.
Talk of secret meetings, talk of collusion, talk of hidden salary increases does nothing but demoralize our good working employees. It insults the City Council that works very hard on both evaluations and on budgets and it falsely raises suspicion among our very well-served citizens. City Council members are owed an apology for your implication that they are not doing a good job. Council President Williams and I deserve an apology for your accusations of deception and collusion; which there was absolutely no evidence. And finally, for not actively participating in the budget hearings or the pay for performance evaluation and then maligning both of those processes is unfair to your constituents and the residents of the City of Dover are owed an apology.”
Council President Williams read the following statement:
“Mr. Ritter, I am now going to present you with some correct information, in chronological order, about the salaries for non-bargaining employees and the Pay for Performance evaluations. This information is part of the public record of the City of Dover.
1. Employment evaluation for City Manager completed on January 7, 2004 for the period of December 2002 - December 2003 reflected ALL members of Council’s comments and scores, although Mr. Carey and I did not participate.
2. On May 5, 2004, each member of Council submitted individual, separate evaluations for all Council Appointees, including the City Manager whose evaluation date was changed, for the period of July 2003 - June 2004. These evaluations are on file in the individuals personnel file in the Human Resources Department. They include both comments and ratings from all members of Council with the exception of yourself and Councilman Pitts, who did not submit individual evaluations for the employees.
3. Since only 7 ratings were received, it was agreed by Council members at that time that the highest and lowest ratings would be eliminated for each employee, and that the remaining 7 scores would be averaged to provide the final Overall Weighted Score in developing salary increases.
Again, since yourself and Councilman Pitts did not submit evaluations, then Council President McGlumphy requested that you be contacted for your scores. After being contacted, Councilman Pitts did indeed provide his rating and you, Councilman Ritter, suggested that “your score be considered the lowest for all employees”.
In all cases, never was a member of Council’s comments or ranking for an employee’s evaluation eliminated. Council President McGlumphy chose to eliminate the highest and the lowest as a means of acquiring a final overall weighted score.
4. During the past year’s annual reviews for Council Appointees, there was no elimination of scores. Each employee’s final score was simply the average of all members that participated, unfortunately, Councilman Ritter you chose not to submit an evaluation or score any of the employees.