SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING

A Special Council Meeting was held on May 11, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Slavin (arrived at 6:44 p.m.), Mr. Ritter, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.

Council staff members present were Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Speed.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimous carried.

PRESENTATION - 2005/2006 BUDGET OVERVIEW

Council President Williams thanked all staff members for their work on the budget, including City Council, who started setting the direction at the Council Retreat in January 2005. She noted that a broad introduction to the budget would be provided and requested members to hold all questions and comments until the end of the introduction. Council President Williams also requested that questions regarding specific budgetary items be held until that specific budget is being discussed.

Council President Williams advised members that Mr. DePrima, City Manager, hopes to get clear direction with respect to levels of expenditures and revenues, importance of existing and proposed programs and projects, and fairness in tax and utility fees. This information will allow him and the budget team to bring forward a revised budget by the third meeting.

Mr. DePrima provided an overview of the 2005/2006 Budget (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk).

 

Mr. Ruane requested staff to prepare a chart depicting the impact of the proposed customer charges and rate increases on the average household. Mr. DePrima stated that he selected random homes of varying sizes and locations and compared their previous actual water, electric, taxes, etc. with the proposed rates and assessment to determine the actual impact. He noted that the information would be presented at some point during the review.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Tieman, Administrative Services Director, explained that there is a deficit to Kent County because the fees that the City charges its customers for sewer treatment does not cover the amount that Kent County charges the City. She advised members that the revenue from wastewater is being used to pay for sewer adjustment. Mr. DePrima noted that the charge does not equal the expenses for wastewater treatment due to the inflow and infiltration of rainwater in the system.

Mr. Ruane suggested that an increase in impact fees should be considered in order that the builders and developers responsible for the growth would fund the expansion of the system and reduce the deficit. Mrs. Mitchell, Finance Director, advised members that impact fees cannot be used for operations; only wastewater debt or growth.

Responding to Mr. Ritter, Mrs. Tieman stated that the new tax rate after the rollback would be $.31 cents.

 

Discussion - Review of 2006-2010 CIP Projects

General Fund

Mr. DePrima reviewed the new projects and highlighted the large projects contained in the CIP for the General Fund.

Referring to the Building Access and Control Upgrade (locks, doors, and card swipe system) and Replacement of the Security System (indoor and outdoor closed circuit televisions) for the Police Department, Mr. Salters requested that one of those projects be delayed until next year. Officer Sammons advised members that if it were necessary to delay a project, they would prefer to delay the building security and closed circuit television system upgrade and move forward with the door swipe upgrade. He also advised members that they are pursuing additional funding from other sources for both projects.

Mr. Ruane, noting that moving forward with a regional library in Dover is one of the City's missions, stated that some money should be set aside to fund the regional library. Mr. DePrima stated that he did not feel comfortable obligating general funds this year without a financing plan. He noted that funding may be possible from other sources, such as Parkland Reserve or Capital Asset Reserve, if Council chose to do so. Mr. Ruane suggested that committing funds, possibly for site acquisition within the next 12 months, would show the citizens that there was a good faith effort being made. Mr. Slavin felt that dedicating funds for site acquisition would also obligate them to out-year costs for the project. He noted that he had no sense of the total cost of the project or the operational impact of a new library. Mr. Slavin stated that building an anchor library, as suggested by the State, the percentage of state-matched funding would increase. Mr. Ruane reminded members that there would be planning costs involved in providing more definitive information regarding the regional library.

 

Water/Wastewater Fund

Mr. DePrima reviewed the new projects and highlighted the large projects contained in the CIP for the Water/Wastewater Fund.

Mr. Ritter stated that Wilmington and Washington, DC are using zinc ortho phosphate to clean and then coat the water lines to inhibit rust. He suggested considering the allocation of pipe replacement funds for the purchase of the rust inhibitor, if it proved to be effective. Mr. Ritter noted that the EPA has endorsed the use of the inhibitor.

 

Electric Revenue Fund

Mr. DePrima reviewed the new projects and highlighted the large projects contained in the CIP for the Water/Wastewater Fund.

With reference to the street light replacement program, Mr. Ritter noted that local legislators are providing the funding for the White Oak and Towne Point lighting upgrade. He suggested that other civic associations could approach the State for funding. Mr. DePrima noted that street lighting qualifies for Community Transportation funds.

Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima noted that the State was paying $448,000 of the cost of the Governors Avenue project, which has a total cost of $1.2M. He noted that the City is taking a strong stance that when poles are taken out, the service has to be installed underground. Mr. Steve Sax, Electric Director, stated that Verizon is the only service which remains on the North Street poles. Mrs. Tieman advised members that she is investigating a pole attachment fee, which may be an incentive for companies to remove their services from City poles.

Mr. Ruane moved to recess until Thursday, May 12, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.

Meeting Recessed at 7:53 P.M.

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005 - 6:00 P.M. - 8:00 P.M.

The Special Council Meeting reconvened on Thursday, May 12, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. with Councilman Salters presiding in the absence of Council President Williams (arrived at 7:10 p.m.). Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane.

Council staff members present were Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Speed (departed at 7:00 p.m.).

Review of 2005/2006 Draft Budget

Mr. DePrima advised members that he had prepared a base budget of $31,235,433 and provided details of the items that were eliminated to achieve that amount. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that the increase over last years= budget was approximately $800,000. He noted that they did not review the base budget for additional cuts.

Responding to Mr. Ritter, Mr. Slavin stated that $235,000 was earmarked in the contingency fund last year for brown water. He noted that Council would have to authorize the expenditure for any other use.

Mr. DePrima noted that, as previously requested, he randomly selected homes of varying sizes and used their actual data to project the impact of the proposed budget on a family=s finances. Mr. Ruane suggested using a Amedian@ home, meaning there are an equal number of homes above and below it, for comparison purposes. Mr. Ritter reminded members that residents would be paying additional Capital School District tax due to the recent referendum.

General Fund

Mayor

Mr. Slavin noted that there had been $3,000 increases in both “Other Expenses” and “Economic Development”. Mayor Speed advised members that $5,000 is always budgeted for “Other Expenses” and is typically reduced when it appears that the funds will not be spent. He noted that “Economic Development” was increased due to the City’s participation in the Bio Conference in Philadelphia. Mayor Speed noted that the City would be partnering with the Central Delaware Economic Development Council and Delaware State University. He noted that, due to the location, travel expenses were not included; however, the cost would increase next year due to the location of the conference.

Council

Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mrs. Tieman stated that the increase from $600 to $7,340 was due to a request for cell phones and internet access for Council members. Mr. Hogan stated that he did not want either included in the budget.

City Manager’s Department

Mr. Ruane asked why funds were allocated for the subdivision of the Garrison Tract. It was his feeling that it presumed the outcome of the Garrison Tract Commission findings. Mr. DePrima stated that the budget was developed prior to the concept and creation of the commission.

 

Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. DePrima stated that funds were allocated in “Contractual Services” for the implementation of the Facility Space Plan. He noted that, although the work would be completed in-house, there may be a need for architectural design work, concept drawings, moving expenses, or office space.

With reference to Broadband, Mr. DePrima stated that they had removed all references to cable and internet services and will focus on the use of the City’s fiber optics.

Administrative Services

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that the budget included projected non-bargaining increases. He noted that it was very important to respect the pay for performance plan.

Mrs. Tieman advised members that the proposed Customer Service Kiosk would assist customers by allowing them to retrieve and pay their bills. She noted that the new remittance processing system was just installed.

Electric Meter Reading

Mrs. Tieman advised members that they would be replacing four pieces of meter reading equipment. She also noted that a new supervisor would be installing and training for a system that will read most meters within 3-days. Mrs. Tieman advised members that they were planning to purchase cell phones for the meter readers instead of radios to improve contact availability.

Central Services

Mr. DePrima advised members that a Material Expediter had been added to Central Services. This position will help them moving toward on-time inventory by tracking inventory and contacting vendors.

Responding to Mr. Carey, Mr. DePrima noted that there was not an increase in overtime over last year. He advised members that overtime is storm sensitive and is not always used; however, it is budgeted as a contingency.

 

With reference to “Equipment Purchase”, Mr. DePrima noted that it was for the purchase of a “voice over internet” system. He advised members that there was a cost avoidance benefit in the amount of $12,000 per year by eliminating approximately 50 telephone lines.

Finance

Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the pending post-retirement medical accounting standard will require an actuarial study to determine the City’s liability. She noted that she received two (2) quotes in the amount of $12,000 and $15,000 for the study and budgeted $20,000, with an additional $5,000 for the consultant to meet with benefit groups or to hold informational meetings.

Human Resources

With reference to the significant increase in Medical Supplies and Physicals, Mr. DePrima explained that pre-employment drug screening is now budgeted solely in Human Resources instead of each department, as had been the practice in previous years. He noted that departments with CDL requirements will continue to budget for CDL testing.

Parks and Recreation

Mr. Ruane noted that there was a new focus on park maintenance and questioned why it was important. Mr. DePrima stated that he had requested staff to develop a specific park maintenance schedule. Mr. Zach Carter, Park and Recreation Director, indicated that additional personnel would be necessary to focus on maintaining the schedule. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Carter stated that a full-time staff member could address litter issues on a regular basis.

Library

Ms. Sheila Anderson, Library Director, advised members that, due to increased patronage, additional staff was necessary to maintain their level of service. She noted that the Library is currently open 68 hours per week and the average number of patrons for a Monday evening is 850.

Planning

Mr. Galvin explained that the Planning Office is struggling to keep up with day to day functions and has not had time to perform long-range planning or studies. He felt that an additional Planner would assist with those projects. Mr. Ruane asked if there were tasks that Council had committed to that have not been met, such as incentive zoning for affordable housing, historic district study/expansion, the re-working of subdivisions, and the requested strategy for meeting demands for telecommunications towers. Mr. Ritter asked if this was a critical position. Mr. Galvin stated that he was more concerned about the need for an additional inspector, which is more critical at this point. Responding to Mr. Carey, Mr. Galvin stated that an additional inspector would change the dynamics of the Inspections Department.

Responding to Council President Williams, Mr. Galvin stated that they have issued 1,000 permits this year, which is 50% more than the number of permits issued last year. He noted that there is currently a backlog on inspections with a 3-day wait for footer inspections. Mr. Galvin stated that his goal was to be more responsive to the public.

Mr. Carey moved to recess until Wednesday, May 18, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., seconded by Mr. Sadusky and unanimously carried.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2005 - 6:00 P.M. - 8:00 P.M.

The Special Council Meeting reconvened on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 at 6:05 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 Mr. DePrima, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Speed (arrived at 7:20 p.m.).

Continuation - Review of 2005/2006 Draft Budget

Police

Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima stated that the red light photo enforcement revenue was lower than anticipated and fewer lights were installed. He advised members to revisit the budget.

once all of the lights have been installed.

Mr. Ruane questioned what precipitated the promotion of a uniformed person. Mr. DePrima reminded members that they reviewed strategic objectives during the retreat and staff recommended two officers for red light enforcement review. Since the initial number of lights have not been installed, the police department felt that if a sergeant position was created in lieu of hiring an additional officer, the program could be managed. Ideally, staff would like to promote an officer to sergeant to perform day-to-day operations and supervise officers on the street. Officer Taraila stated that they receive approximately 40 violations per day, each of which must be reviewed. Mr. DePrima noted that the quality of life task force would consist of three (3) officers which would not be used for red light photo enforcement. Mr. Ruane stated that he would not support the quality of life task force if they will not be used city-wide to combat issues.

Public Works -Administration

Responding to Mr. Carey, Mr. Koenig stated that the ground maintenance position was in response to a request from Parks and Recreation for an additional person dedicated to the park management plan. Currently, there is one part-time, seasonal person who handles Schutte Park. Mr. DePrima cautioned that if the fields are not maintained it will become an issue of restoration instead of maintenance, which would involve periods of closure for repairs. Responding to Mr. Carey, Mr. Koenig stated that they receive many work orders for small maintenance items at the parks, such as fallen tree limbs and light bulb replacement. Mr. Salters advised members that he has received numerous complaints about the condition of Dover Park, noting that residents would like it to be cleaned up. Mr. DePrima reminded members that he requested Mr. Carter to devise a maintenance plan and work with Public Works to develop a plan for achieving the maintenance plan.

 

Tax Office

Mr. DePrima advised members that they were not aware of Mr. Cooper’s intention to retire when the budget was created. He noted that some funds may be moved from salary and, if there is a savings, it could be earmarked during the mid-year review.

Mr. Ruane reminded members that a comprehensive reassessment is forthcoming. He suggested that money be set aside within the next three (3) years to enable inside review of homes during the reassessment. Mr. DePrima stated that Cole Layer Trumble has indicated that an interior review of all homes is generally done over a period of time.

Mr. DePrima presented a chart representing a base budget and with a tax revenue rollback of .0310, and the effect of increases of $.01 cent through $.07 cents (Exhibit #1). He noted that, in order to achieve the base budget, increases in fines and fees, increases in transfer taxes for this year and next year, increases in the wastewater and electric transfer, and increases in interest earnings were included. Eliminated from expenditures were many of the quality of life priorities, enhancements, transfers, and strategic items. He noted that reintroduction of the enhancement items begins at the $.05 cent mark and at the $.06 and $.07 cent marks, reserves begin to be affected.

 

Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. DePrima stated that the impact of a rollback tax of $.411 cents is a tax increase of $135. He cautioned members that there really is no “typical” property and some residents may have a tax reduction based on the reassessment. Mr. Ruane questioned what percentage of the additional revenue at $.41 cents would be derived from commercial properties. Mr. DePrima responded that he had just received the data and had not had a chance to review it. Mr. Ruane advised members that there was a 57% increase in commercial values and a 27% increase in residential values. It was his feeling that the commercial values were finally in line with where the residential values have been.

Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. DePrima stated that the whole assessment, particularly the commercial values, is more reliable than they have been in the past. Mr. Salters stated that the values of the homes have increased but the City has not made any adjustments in the taxes. If homes were assessed at the .41 cent rate, the rate would be appropriate. Mr. Salters stated that he would rather see taxes added to properties instead of adding or increasing fees, feeling that the City needs to move forward with resolving water problems and cleaning up the City and the citizens should start sharing the burden.

 

Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mr. DePrima stated that the tax rate and the rollback must be published in a resolution, along with a comparison of the two (2) rates. Mr. Hogan noted stated that he calculated various tax increases and determined the following: a .01 cent tax increase is equivalent to 3.2%; a .02 cent increase is equivalent to 6.5%; a .03 cent increase is equivalent to 9.7%; a .04 cent increase is equivalent to 12.9%; a .05 cent increase is equivalent to 16.1%; a .06 cent increase is equivalent to 19.4%; and a .07 cent increase is equivalent to 22.6%.

Mr. Slavin reminded members that Dover recently lost three (3) major employers and expressed concern that a tax increase could impact the remaining businesses. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that a tax rate of $.41 cents per $100 is still very competitive with other areas.

Mr. Ritter noted that State and non-profit organizations are not taxed; therefore, only 66% of the City is paying for 100% of the expenses. Mr. DePrima stated that the tax-exempt users are paying fees for services. Mr. Ruane stated that he would like the City Manager to assign someone to derive as much information as possible from the reassessment. Mrs. Williams requested Mr. DePrima to filter the database to determine a true value for exempt properties.

Mr. Hogan moved that line item 30-21 of City Council's budget be reduced from $7,340 to last years amount of $600.00, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Ruane moved to accept the proposed .07 cent budget, seconded by Mr. Salters. The motion failed by a roll call vote of three (3) yes and five (5) no (Mr. Carey, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Hogan, and Mrs. Williams) (Mr. Pitts absent).

Mr. Hogan moved to publish the roll back rate of .31 cents and add a two (.02) cent tax increase. The motion failed due to the lack of a second.

Mr. Salters moved to adopt the four (.04) cent tax rate for this budget year, seconded by Mr. Sadusky. Mr. Ruane requested that the motion be amended to move the $44,869 for the Planner from the .05 cent column to the .03 cent column, replacing the park maintenance position since there did not seem to be a great deal of support for it. Mr. Salters stated that he would agree to the amendment if it did not exceed .04 cents, as did Mr. Sadusky, the seconder of the motion. Mr. Slavin suggested that the City Manager now be requested to provide scenarios for tax increases between $.03 and $.06 cents, based on the previous motions indicating that range may be acceptable. Mr. Carey felt that the need for an additional Inspector was more pressing than for an additional Planner, since the Planners have recently completed several major projects and may now have time to pursue additional objectives. Mr. Ritter stated that he wanted to see the Red Light Photo Enforcement Revenues used to retain the Quality of Life Task Force Officers.

On a call for the question, the motion failed by a roll call vote of four (4) yes (Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Salters, Mr. Ruane, and Mrs. Williams) and four (4) no (Mr. Carey, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ritter, and Mr. Hogan) (Mr. Pitts absent).

Mr. Hogan moved to recess until Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.

Meeting Recessed at 7:57 p.m.

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005 - 6:00 P.M. - 8:00 P.M.

The Special Council Meeting reconvened on Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Hogan (departed at 6:30 p.m.), Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.

 

Council staff members present were Mr. DePrima, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Speed (arrived at 7:20 p.m.).

Continuation - Review of 2005/2006 Draft Budget

Review of 2005/2006 Draft Budget

Mr. DePrima advised members that, after last evenings meeting, Council President Williams and Mayor Speed advised him that they had independently studied the transfer tax projections and requested the budget team to reevaluate the transfer tax revenue, which they did. He noted that the real estate expansion and sales experienced last year will probably continue into next year; therefore, they increased projected transfer tax revenue and provided updated information for $.01 - $.04 cent increases (Exhibit #2). He noted that the transfer tax revenue increase will accommodate the items listed under the $.01 - $.03 cent tax rate increase columns previously provided, such as Transfer to Post Retirement Reserve, Reduced Transfer from Water/Wastewater, Quality of Life Task Force/Promotion, etc.

Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Tieman stated that the original transfer tax estimate was $2M, revised last week to $2.3M, and revised again last night to $2.4M for the current year. The original estimate for 2006 was $1.6M, revised last week to $1.8, and revised again last night to $2.4M.

Mr. Ritter stated that he had reviewed the telephone system for $130,000 and it was his feeling that there is not a dire need for a new phone system.

 

Mrs. Williams stated that she requested Mr. DePrima to provide numbers for the tax exempt properties. Mr. DePrima advised members that 28% of Dover properties are exempt. He also noted that there are several thousand customers residing outside of the City that are currently on the City's electric and water system.

Mr. Salters stated that a $.01 cent increase is low, $.02 cents would get the City where it needs to be, and a $.025 increase would be reasonable and would provide a budget that would allow them to cut some of the fees. It was Mr. Hogan's opinion that nothing in the $.025 to $.03 cent range was critical. Mr. Slavin stated that if funding were at $.01 cent or above it would be a significant decrease in the transfer from Water/Wastewater.

Mr. Ruane moved to proceed to the discussion of the Water/Wastewater Fund, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. DePrima advised members that the revenue generated from the proposed water/wastewater increases were as follows: