packet

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 8, 2016 - 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA DOVER, DELAWARE OPEN FORUM - 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO OFFICIAL MEETING (7:15 P.M.) THE “OPEN FORUM” SEGMENT IS PROVIDED TO EXTEND THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO SHARE THEIR QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS, AND COMPLAINTS. DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM APPEARING ON THE AGENDA AS A PUBLIC HEARING IS PROHIBITED DURING THE OPEN FORUM AS AN OPPORTUNITY WILL BE PROVIDED DURING CONSIDERATION OF THAT ITEM. CITIZEN COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES. COUNCIL IS PROHIBITED FROM TAKING ACTION SINCE THEY ARE NOT IN OFFICIAL SESSION; HOWEVER, THEY MAY SCHEDULE SUCH ITEMS AS REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS AND ACT UPON THEM IN THE FUTURE. INVOCATION BY BISHOP THOMAS L. HOLSEY PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN LEWIS AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA THOSE ITEMS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA WHICH ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND NON- CONTROVERSIAL SHALL BE MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) AND WILL BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE ROLL CALL VOTE OF THE COUNCIL. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL SO REQUESTS, IN WHICH EVENT THE MATTER SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED A SEPARATE ITEM. * 1. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 2. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - CAROLINE HERMANCE 3. PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-16 WITH STAFF AMENDMENT #1 (SA#1) AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WAS ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2016. THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OR ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER "GOVERNMENT.” A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-16 WITH SA#1 AMENDING CHAPTER 22 - BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS; CHAPTER 26 - BUSINESSES; CHAPTER 50 - FLOODS; CHAPTER 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TRAILERS; CHAPTER 102 - TAXATION; CHAPTER 106 - TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES; CHAPTER 110 - UTILITIES; APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLES 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 12; AND APPENDIX F - FEES AND FINES

Council Agenda - August 8, 2016 Page 2 * 4. HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION REPORT - JULY 20, 2016 A. ELECTION OF CHAIR - COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE (COMMISSION DEFERRED UNTIL THERE ARE MORE MEMBERS SERVING ON THE DHRC) B. ELECTION OF CHAIR - COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE (COMMISSION DEFERRED UNTIL THERE ARE MORE MEMBERS SERVING ON THE DHRC) C. DHRC COMMITTEE UPDATES D. OLD BUSINESS (1) DHRC VACANCIES (FIRST AND FOURTH DISTRICTS) * 5. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - JULY 26, 2016 A. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (1) VIABILITY OF THE SHOTSPOTTER GUNSHOT DETECTION AND LOCATION SERVICE (COMMITTEE DEFERRED THIS ITEM FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION) (2) ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY OF DOVER (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT STAFF PREPARE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO LOOK AT EMERGENCY SERVICES) (3) OVERVIEW OF THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS OVERLAY ZONE RELATED TO DOVER AIR FORCE BASE AND FORDHAM BREWERY (COMMITTEE ACTION NOT REQUIRED) B. UTILITY COMMITTEE (1) EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS - UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES CONTRACT (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED AWARDING A ONE (1) YEAR CONTRACT WITH THE OPTION FOR TWO (2) ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSIONS TO W LOCCO, LLC AS PER THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO RFP #16-0044COD) (2) DEDICATION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE - DOVER HIGH SCHOOL PUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ACCEPTANCE OF THE PUMP STATION AND ASSOCIATED FORCE MAIN AT DOVER HIGH SCHOOL, WITH DEDICATION TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE REFERENCED INFRASTRUCTURE) C. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (1) DISCUSSION OF DUTIES AND ASSIGNMENTS OF CITY PERSONNEL (COMMITTEE DEFERRED THIS MATTER UNTIL MEMBERS HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THEY NEED) (2) PROPOSAL FOR DOVER PUBLIC LIBRARY TO SERVE AS A PASSPORT ACCEPTANCE FACILITY (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION TO PROVIDE PASSPORT SERVICES AT THE DOVER PUBLIC LIBRARY AND INCUR THE NECESSARY EXPENSES TO IMPLEMENT AND MANAGE THE PROGRAM) (3) PROPOSAL FOR DOVER PUBLIC LIBRARY TO ADOPT A SMOKE-FREE POLICY (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT A SMOKE-FREE POLICY ON THE CAMPUS AND GROUNDS OF THE DOVER PUBLIC LIBRARY) (4) REQUEST TO SOLICIT REAL ESTATE SERVICES - GARRISON OAK TECHNICAL PARK (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SOLICIT INTEREST AND PROPOSALS FOR PROVIDING REAL ESTATE SERVICES FOR AVAILABLE PROPERTY IN THE GARRISON OAK TECHNICAL PARK)

Council Agenda - August 8, 2016 Page 3 * 5. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - JULY 26, 2016 (CONTINUED) C. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (CONTINUED) (5) CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ANY POSITIONS THAT REMAIN OPEN FOR OVER SIX (6) MONTHS WITHOUT BEING RECRUITED (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED REAFFIRMING THE AUTHORIZATION TO RECRUIT ALL OPEN POSITIONS AS THE CITY MANAGER DEEMS NECESSARY) (6) PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-19 AMENDING CHAPTER 22 - BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 46 - FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION, AND CHAPTER 50 - FLOODS (CONSOLIDATION OF CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS C OMMITTEE AND P ROPERTY M AINTENANCE C ODE B OARD OF APPEALS)(SPONSORS: COLE, HUTCHISON, AND NEIL)(SEE ITEM #9) (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-19, AS AMENDED TO CHANGE THE COMPOSITION OF THE MEMBERS BY REPLACING THE CITY MANAGER WITH AN ELECTED CITY OFFICIAL) * 6. MONTHLY REPORTS - JUNE 2016 A. CITY ASSESSOR’S REPORT B. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT C. CITY PLANNER’S REPORT D. CONTROLLER/TREASURER’S BUDGET REPORT (PRE-AUDIT) E. FIRE CHIEF’S REPORT F. POLICE CHIEF’S REPORT * 7. QUARTERLY REVIEW OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN (CIP) (APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE) (PRE-AUDIT) 8. EVALUATION OF BIDS - NORTH STATE STREET GRAVITY SEWER REPAIR (STAFF RECOMMENDS AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO EASTERN STATES CONSTRUCTION SERVICE, INC. FOR THE CITY OF DOVER NORTH STATE STREET GRAVITY SEWER REPAIR PROJECT, BID #16-0045PW, FOR THE AMOUNT OF $335,470.00) 9. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-19 WITH COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AMENDMENT #1 (CCW/LF&A #1) THE FIRST READING IS OFFERED ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. FINAL ACTION BY COUNCIL WILL TAKE PLACE DURING THE SECOND READING ON AUGUST 22, 2016. THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFDOVER.COM UNDER "GOVERNMENT," OR BY CONTACTING THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT 736-7008 OR CITYCLERK@DOVER.DE.US. A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-19 WITH CCW/LF&A#1 AMENDING CHAPTER 22 - BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 46 - FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION, AND CHAPTER 50 - FLOODS (CONSOLIDATION OF CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS COMMITTEE AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS) (LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE) 10. CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

Council Agenda - August 8, 2016 Page 4 11. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\COUNCIL-AGENDAS\2016\08-08-2016.WPD EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO: 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(2) - PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS ON SITE ACQUISITIONS FOR ANY PUBLICLY FUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, OR SALES OR LEASES OF REAL PROPERTY; 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(4) - STRATEGY SESSIONS, INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION FROM AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, BUT ONLY WHEN AN OPEN MEETING WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE BARGAINING OR LITIGATION POSITION OF THE PUBLIC BODY; 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(6) - DISCUSSION OF THE CONTENT OF DOCUMENTS, EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF "PUBLIC RECORD" IN §10002 OF THIS TITLE WHERE SUCH DISCUSSION MAY DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS; 29 DEL. C. §10004(B)(9) - PERSONNEL MATTERS IN WHICH THE NAMES, COMPETENCY AND ABILITIES OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES ARE DISCUSSED, UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE REQUESTS THAT SUCH A MEETING BE OPEN THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(E)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on July 25, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Slavin presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 7:31 p.m.), Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cole, Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison (departed at 7:44 p.m. and returned at 7:46 p.m.). Council staff members present were Deputy Police Chief Mailey, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend, Deputy Fire Chief Rhodes, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was absent. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Slavin declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Mr. Ted George, 77 Billings Drive, informed members that he had been a member of Christ Episcopal Church, at the corner of Water and State Streets, for almost 50 years, and was very concerned about something that occurred beyond everyone's control, including the City Manager and the Mayor. He stated that in December and January of 2014 the City had snow and ice, and the City and State trucks piled ice and snow approximately 100 feet on the sidewalk that borders Water Street, noting that they also piled it up on top of the church's short wall. Mr. George explained that the result was that 100 feet of the short wall bowed and buckled, noting that many bricks were broken. He stated that a section of the curb was also broken, and for parishioners to be able to park they have to be careful not to run their car tire into the curb because it juts out. Mr. George stated that the Mayor was well aware of this situation when he called him about it, noting that Mayor Christiansen took his oath of office on July 25, 2014 and was the Mayor at the time this snow and ice hit. Mr. George explained that when he asked the Mayor when this would get fixed, his answer was to get the City Manager, Mr. Scott Koenig involved. He stated that in early May 2015 he met with Mr. Koenig and the Mayor, and Mr. Koenig indicated that the City had three (3) projects to get to. Mr. George noted that it was now July 2016, nothing had been done towards the repair, and his church is frustrated. He stated that the 100 foot sidewalk is so bad that ladies with high heels can twist and sprain an ankle in a heartbeat. Mr. George advised that he was turning to members of City Council to try to expedite this and get the problem on Water Street fixed for the church as quickly as possible. He stated that he could answer any questions regarding this matter, noting that he is the historian and was in buildings and grounds on the vestry at the time this happened. The invocation was given by Chaplain Wallace Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 2 Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 2016 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 11, 2016 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. PRESENTATION - LUTHERAN SENIOR SERVICES OF DOVER, INC. - PAYMENT-IN-LIEU OF TAXES (PILOT) On behalf of members of Council, Councilmen Cole, Hare, Lewis, and Neil accepted a contribution from Mr. Gary Coy, Executive Director of Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc., in the amount of $27,227 as payment-in-lieu of taxes (PILOT) for expenses associated with City services provided to Lutheran Senior Services of Dover throughout the year. Mr. Coy informed members that Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. is a non-profit organization that provides housing for seniors at Luther Towers and Luther Village. He noted that the organization began in 1979 and, according to articles he had read, it was controversial. Mr. Coy stated that they built their first building with a bond bill with the State, and had a contract with Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide 149 units for low-income seniors, 62 years old and above. The first building opened in 1980, and the second building, Luther Towers II, opened in 1984, with another 50 apartments through a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan that HUD guaranteed with a Housing Assistance Payments (HAPs) contract. He noted that they changed programs and became a Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC), a project assigned program for seniors. In 1994 they built Luther Towers III with 49 apartments, and in 1998 they built the fourth building on Silver Lake with 44 apartments. Mr. Coy stated that they ran out of room, so the board set out on a search for more property and bought 35 acres from John Hunn Brown, behind Safeway. He advised that, in November of 2006, they opened Luther Village I and provided 68 apartments. Mr. Coy stated that he came along in 2008, in 2009 Luther Village II opened, and in November 2015 they dedicated Luther Village III, with 45 apartments. He informed members that Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. currently has 436 apartments and approximately 460 seniors living in those apartments, noting that they have a nice proportion of the population of the seniors 62 and above in the City. Mr. Coy explained that the seniors living in the Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. apartments are your fathers, your mothers, your brothers, sisters, grandfathers, and grandmothers, they are seniors trying to make it, and most of them are living on Social Security. He asked members how they would like to live on $7,500. Mr. Coy advised that the rents are set based on a formula, which is 30% of their income, and HUD subsidizes the rest so that Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. can make operating costs. He reiterated that they do not make a profit. Mr. Coy explained that they do not have overhead and their entire board of directors works for nothing and dedicates their time to the vision of providing safe, affordable housing.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 3 Mr. Coy noted that the average age is 75 years old in all the buildings. Referring to the impact that Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. has on the City, he stated that they provide a service by providing housing. He indicated that they have approximately 30 employees, noting that they are currently down a couple of employees. Mr. Coy stated that there are 12 full-time employees in addition to himself, and the rest are part-time employees. He noted that they have hired individuals ranging from 18 years old to 82 and employ some of their residents. They pay about one and a half times the minimum wage and, although it is not a lot of money, it helps out and is also money pumped into the community. Mr. Coy informed members that Luther Village III has 45 apartments and the waiting list for that income level was five (5) years when they built the building. He asked members to imagine being on a list for five (5) years when you are 62 years old, noting that individuals can put in an application, but seniors are growing in need. Mr. Coy indicated that HUD is also hurting for money, explaining that last year, the building that Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. built for $8.5M, for 45 apartments, was not subsidized by HUD. He stated that last year, for the entire United States, those particular senior projects were approximately $60M total and Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. built an $8.5M building with private funding grants. Mr. Coy explained that although they do not receive a subsidy, they only charge rent that is approximately 30% of what the residents earn. He stated that they have a wonderful facility and invited members to visit for a tour. In addition to housing, Mr. Coy stated that Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. also provides transportation to medical appointments, shopping, and banking for their seniors, noting that a lot of them cannot afford cars. He asked members to imagine having no income and a $9 per month rent. Mr. Coy advised that there are a lot of needs out there, and he is concerned when he reads about non-profits needing to pay taxes. He explained that HUD allows Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. to budget because they understand; however, there are a lot of non-profits that cannot budget because they are totally dependent upon gifts and grants that are not from the government, including the Food Bank, Mom's House, homeless shelters, and many other places. Mr. Coy stated that Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. has people that have come in off the street after being on the waiting list for a year and a half, noting that their lowest income category is a year and a half. He informed members that they receive calls almost daily from seniors and senior veterans that are looking for a place to stay, and the staff has to tell them to "please fill out an application, but it might be a year and a half." Mr. Coy stated that it is tough out there. Referring to the Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. PILOT, Mr. Coy stated that HUD has allowed them to budget for it. He stated that they had a good year, met all of their goals, and were able to live within their budget, noting that fortunately it did not snow too much, so they did not have to pay much for snow removal. Mr. Coy stated that this year’s contribution of $27,227 was the same amount as last year. He expressed his hope that next year they will have a little more with their new building, since they plan to do that. Mr. Coy stated that he could not say enough about their police support, noting that they do get problems and have people coming in with warrants out. He advised that when they find out, they call the police, and they show up. Mr. Coy stated that he was also grateful to the fire department, noting that they have not had any fires; however, the seniors have a lot of stove incidents. He stated that the members of the fire department are professionals all the way.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 4 Mr. Sudler thanked Mr. Coy for all that he does, noting that he understands the needs because his family, the Mishoe family, has served the community, veterans, handicapped, and senior individuals off State College Road. He explained that, as a manager of that facility, he understands Mr. Coy’s sacrifice and the challenges that he faces. Mr. Sudler stated that he supports non-profit organizations and would not be voting for taxes for non-profits. Mr. Hutchison expressed sincere thanks to Mr. Coy and the board of trustees for their leadership and commitment to the people that they take care of, and for the relationship which they have with the City of Dover. He stated that since 1989, Lutheran Senior Services of Dover, Inc. has voluntarily contributed a PILOT to the City. Their initial payment in 1989 was $5,000 and, with this year's contribution of $27,227, the approximate total contribution to date is $464,756. On behalf of members of Council, Mr. Slavin thanked Mr. Coy. PRESENTATION - RECOGNITION OF SERVICE - CINDY SMALL - DOWNTOWN DOVER PARTNERSHIP - JUNE 2008 THROUGH MARCH 2016 On behalf of members of Council, Councilmen Anderson, Hare, and Neil presented Mrs. Cindy Small with a Dover Cup in recognition of her many years of service on the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP). Mr. Neil noted that although Mrs. Small was being honored for her role in the DDP, she was also a legend with Kent County Tourism and greater Dover tourism. He stated that he had a great deal of respect for Mrs. Small for everything she had done, including the outstanding job she did for the events that continue to happen, particularly Dover Days which has been a phenomenal success. Mrs. Small thanked members of Council. She stated that it was her honor and privilege to serve the City of Dover, members of Council, the downtown, and the citizens, noting that it will always be close to her heart. PRESENTATION - COMIC CON Mrs. Margery Cyr, Director of the Dover Public Library, reminded members that during the Regular Council meeting of July 11, 2016, she and Ms. Catherine Wimberley, Head of Youth Services, provided a presentation regarding the Maurice Sendak Memorial Exhibition which will have its grand opening on Friday evening, July 29, 2016, and Saturday, July 30, 2016. She stated that the summer just keeps getting better, explaining that she had asked Ms. Katherine Goff, Teen Librarian, and Ms. Kerri Hollyday, Library Assistant in the Teen Loft, to provide a presentation regarding Comic Con, which will take place on Saturday, August 6, 2016. Ms. Goff and Ms. Hollyday reviewed a presentation entitled “Dover Comic Con 2016” (Exhibit #1). Ms. Hollyday explained that one of the Dover Public Library’s goals is to provide patrons with an experience that extends beyond the traditional expectations of a library. She stated that libraries today are more than just books on shelves, noting that the Dover Public Library has different collections, programs, and activities for everyone of all ages. Ms. Hollyday advised that Comic Con came about as a new way and a unique platform to introduce new people to the library and the services offered. She stated that over the past three (3) years, it has expanded beyond the borders of the library into other community groups such as the Biggs Museum, First State Heritage Park, and the Schwartz Center, and this year to the Dover Art League and Delaware Pride as well.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 5 Referring to page 3 of the presentation, Ms. Hollyday reviewed two (2) graphs depicting the growth of Dover Comic Con, noting that the event began in 2014 with eight (8) artists, four (4) panels and programs, five (5) vendors, and two (2) food trucks, and this year they were expecting 41 artists, 19 panels, 60 vendors, and 15 food trucks. She stated that attendance had also increased, explaining that in the first year staff would have been happy with about 500 people and 2,500 people attended. Ms. Hollyday informed members that last year approximately 7,000 people attended, and they were preparing for 10,000 this year. Ms. Goff, referring to pages 4-5 of the presentation, reviewed graphs depicting the statistics for comparable events, explaining that the projected attendance per day for the 2016 Dover Comic Con was similar to the per day attendance for the Baltimore Comic Con; Otakon, held in Baltimore; and Awesome Con, held in Washington, D.C. She noted that these events run for several days; however, per day, Dover Comic Con is on par with them. Ms. Goff advised members that the projected attendance per day for the 2016 Dover Comic Con was exactly the same as the attendance for Firefly Music Festival when it began in 2012 and Big Barrel Country Music Festival when it began in 2015. She indicated that Dover Comic Con can only grow from this, and they are seeing evidence of that daily. Ms. Goff shared the public service announcement (PSA) that WBOC put together and began airing on July 22, 2016. Ms. Hollyday informed members that the PSA was posted on the Library’s Facebook page, had reached over 10,000 people, was shared 118 times, and more than 4,000 people had viewed the whole video. She stated that the Library was really excited and looking forward to everyone coming in and everyone from the community coming out for this event. Mr. Neil stated that he thought it was marvelous when he went last year, noting that he was greeted like a character even though he was not in uniform. He noted that, with the Maurice Sendak exhibit beginning on July 29, 2016 and running through the middle of September, and Comic Con, it was like hitting a double header. Mr. Neil indicated that this event is terrific for young people and the young at heart. He explained that, even though he was one of the old guys, he appreciated what was going on, talking to the people, and he noted how much they appreciated it. Mr. Neil applauded the effort of the Library. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding the hours of Comic Con, Ms. Hollyday stated that this year Comic Con would begin on Friday night with a kick-off event on Loockerman Way Plaza with the arrival of the Ghost Busters and Ecto 1 at 5:30 p.m., and an In Harmony concert scheduled for 6:30 p.m. She informed members that the Schwartz Center would be showing the original Star Wars movie and tickets would be $7, noting that this was the same place that the film was originally shown in Dover in 1977. Ms. Hollyday stated that Kent County Tourism was providing the fireworks that were cancelled for Dover Days on Friday night as well. She advised that staff decided to begin the event on Friday night this year to make sure that people have something to do on Friday, explaining that last year staff was shocked that people were coming from out of state and staying. Ms. Hollyday announced that the event on Saturday was scheduled from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. In response to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Hollyday stated that the TARDIS would be at Comic Con again this year; however, it would be outside the Old State House this year because the Division of

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 6 Historical and Cultural Affairs are bringing back their play “Caesar Rodney Meets Dr. Who.” She informed members that the play would be held at 11:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - JULY 12, 2016 The Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was held on July 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding (departed at 6:22 p.m., returned at 6:23 p.m., and departed at 6:45 p.m.). Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:18 p.m.), Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis (arrived at 6:16 p.m.), Mr. Cole, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Hosfelt was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Caldwell (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), Ms. Arndt and Mr. Blakeman (Utility), and Mr. Shevock and Ms. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mrs. Horsey (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement) was absent. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held with Chairman Hare presiding. Wesley College Proposal for Former Dover Public Library Building Members were provided correspondence dated July 12, 2016 from Robert E. Clark II, President, Wesley College, and a proposal entitled “The Adaptive Re-use of the Former Dover Public Library Proposal.” President Clark stated that the proposal was related to the College’s acquisition of the old Dover Public Library, but more accurately it related to the community of Dover. He indicated that he did not look at Wesley College as a small college in Dover but as Dover’s college. President Clark stated that the proposal would provide the community with an educational building and infrastructure for health care, which was a very highly needed service in the community. He noted that Wesley College would be starting a Master’s of Occupational Therapy program this fall, which would be the only such program in the Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey region. President Clark advised that there are a couple of hundred registered occupational therapists in Delaware and a need for almost 250 more, stating that the proposal would meet this need and, more importantly, connect the downtown to Wesley College and provide an area where there would be students, faculty, and families 24/7. He estimated that there would be at least 500 students using the facility as the program starts off and then grows. President Clark indicated that this would be a walking area that would be an extension of the campus and revitalize that portion of State Street. He noted that he was new to Wesley College; however, the tradition of the Wesley College/Dover partnership goes way back and this partnership was a strong suit of the community and area and one (1) of the things that attracted him to Dover. President Clark stated that he and the Wesley faculty, staff, and students must meet the extended family members in Dover. He noted that the City is also very interested in the future and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 7 understands service above self. President Clark advised members that education is not bound by brick and mortar and a four (4) year time continuum but is a lifelong process. He believed that this facility and this partnership, with the City providing the skeleton, would provide the heart and soul that would move this particular building into an arena where it becomes something living that not only educates the future but gives back to the community right away. Mr. Hutchison noted that Wesley College would be looking at spending money on the building in order to meet standards and bring it up to code. President Clark stated that engineers had gone through the building. The estimated cost to meet mechanical, electrical, American Disabilities Act (ADA), and fire suppression codes, as well as to provide services for their educators, would be approximately $2M. Members were provided an email from Mr. Thomas Leary, former City Council President, dated July 12, 2016, regarding Library Giveaway. Referring to this email, Mr. Neil expressed sympathy for the idea of spreading the Wesley Campus into the downtown area; however, stated concerns regarding the issues that had been expressed by Mr. Leary. Mr. Neil noted that the value of the building was not known at this time, and he was unsure how much of a delay examining this would cause in the process. He indicated that it was unknown what the building would bring to the City in taxes and other development if it were used for commercial purposes, and he believed this must be determined before saying yes to the proposal. Mr. Neil loved the idea and what it could mean to the City; however, he felt that this step needed to be taken before going ahead. He stated that this was the first time he was seeing the proposal and wanted to be able to study it. Mr. Neil advised that if action is delayed on the proposal, this would not be because he was personally opposed; however, as a member of Council and representative of his constituents in the Third District, he believed this step must be taken. President Clark stated that he understood, and he appreciated everyone’s interest and desire to take a very hard look at the proposal and what it would bring to the community. He felt that the harder the proposal was looked at, the more it would be realized how beneficial it would be to the City and its future. President Clark stated that there is a balance, noting that this matter could be looked at in terms of cash flow and immediacy in terms of fiscal reality and money in hand. He advised that time and time again, history had shown that this approach works very well for the short term; however, the long term is the economic development and the potential that something provides. President Clark stated that, as members review the proposal and receive other input, they would see the long-term benefits, noting that research shows that educational institutions, partnering with communities, provide stimuli. He indicated that a business would bring in the eight (8) to five (5), Monday through Friday presence of those who come to work and leave; however, an educational institution has a 24/7 life of its own. President Clark stated that people would be coming and going, and there would be not only the immediacy of education and the opportunities provided by the curriculum, but the interest that would be drawn from external entities, whether health care consortiums or future students. He indicated

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 8 that people would be brought into Dover and, more importantly, closer to downtown. President Clark advised that they had done an economic impact study, and the results surprised him, noting that Wesley College alone brings $86M into Kent County annually. He felt that everyone was one (1) team, family, and future, that Wesley is Dover and Dover is Wesley, and he felt that Wesley was blessed to be part of this partnership. He thanked members for what had been done in the past and looked forward to continuing this partnership going forward. Mr. Slavin thanked President Clark and stated his appreciation that Wesley College had come forward with this proposal. He advised that President Clark had indicated to him that he wanted to make sure this was heard with full, open transparency both at the committee and Council levels. In response to Mr. Slavin regarding whether there was an appraisal on this property, Mr. Koenig indicated that there was an appraisal from 2011, and another had been ordered and should be available next week. Mr. Slavin advised that this information would be available in 13 days time when this matter comes forward before the full Council. Mr. Slavin noted that if the City were to make such an investment, it would not be desired for the property to be flipped and sold for a drive-through McDonald’s or something of that nature. He questioned, as an institution, what Wesley College would be willing to take on to ensure that this would be used for educational purposes. Responding, President Clark stated that there could be any type of clause stating that if at any point Wesley College looks to sell or turn the property over, the City would get first rights of refusal. He gave his word that the purpose was not to flip the property or make money but to provide opportunities for the futures of the young men and women who will be the future Doverites that impact the economy and the culture of the City. President Clark reiterated that this was about our community and our kids. He agreed to a clause that has a safe out so that 20, 50, or 100 years down the road, if something gets tight, that will not be used as a bargaining chip. President Clark indicated that it would be an educational institution and an educational building that will provide the opportunities for our children and the community in the future. Mr. Slavin expressed his opinion that economic development strategy begins with taking care of the existing employers and job base to protect them. He advised that if he was told that an existing employer had come forward, was willing to make a multi-million dollar investment, and would adaptively reuse a building that had been vacant for a number of years, and that all of this would occur in a downtown revitalization area where the City had focused time, energy, and money in getting this exact thing to be done, his only question would be what could be done to help. Mr. Slavin felt that the answer would be that the City would give abatements, tax credits, waivers, and may put other incentives on the table. For example, he felt members should think about the Garrison Oak Technical Park and what incentives the City would put in place. Mr. Slavin indicated that if calculated over the life cycle

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 9 of the building, the incentives would probably far outstrip the value that the City has in the building. In addition, he expressed concern that there had been no other plan for this building, and it was suffering because of this. He stated the need to address the issue of what would be done with the building because there is very little capacity inside a municipal government to think strategically about vacant properties. Mr. Slavin expressed the need to take advantage of the opportunity when it presents itself. He indicated that he was very supportive of the proposal and thanked President Clark for coming forward and answering questions. Mr. Slavin stated that if there were questions regarding the appraisal, this information could be available at the next full meeting of Council in 13 days and President Clark would be invited back for this. Mr. Shevock advised that he would like to see the appraisal and, if the proposal is approved, that clawback phrasing would indicate that the building would come back in the same way that it went through. Responding to Mr. Shevock, President Clark stated that the project would be started almost immediately and the date of project completion would be determined when they decide where things would be put in the footprint. He explained that Wesley’s Master’s of Occupational Therapy program shares some rooms in Johnston Hall, the former Frear Building. President Clark noted that this new program would start in the fall and was allowed 20 new students by their accreditors. They were now interviewing almost double this number. It was projected that in the next two (2) to three (3) years, they would be at 90 plus, and a couple of rooms would not satisfy this. President Clark advised that there are a lot of preliminary courses for health care programs, including math, science, and higher core freshman courses. As the program grows, these will also grow. He indicated that Cannon Hall was almost at capacity for labs. President Clark stated that the proposal would allow some relief by bringing some of the core science programs to the old Dover library, possibly including some labs that specifically support the health science and health care curriculum. President Clark noted that starting the Master’s of Occupational Therapy would be great for bringing people in. In addition, he noted that Wesley College was looking at what they can do for their existing infrastructure, and one (1) of the core components of this would be expanding kinesiology. President Clark advised that this would mean bringing in more professors, adjuncts, and staff to support the undergraduate feed that would lead to the Master’s of Occupational Therapy program. He noted that some large schools have pro bono type clinics where children and the community are brought in and pay less than the full price of a large health care institution for these educational and collegiate services. President Clark stated the desire to start immediately and get faculty chairs to lay out what they think would be piece and parcel of the proposal. He stated that he, Provost Jeff Gibson, and the Vice President for Finance had considered this, and he did not want to make decisions for his experts until they had a chance to lay this out. President Clark indicated that he did not want to talk too much about this within his organization and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 10 raise undue expectations before coming before Council and until there was a firm path. Mr. Shevock questioned if part of the proposal would be up and running within three (3) or six (6) months. Responding, President Clark indicated that the former Frear Building had taken a couple of years; however, he felt the current proposal would take a little less time, based on his own engineering background and the engineers who were brought in. He indicated that, although $2M was substantial for them, it was not quite as behind as the former Frear Building was. President Clark stated that he would provide a report once he receives more firm data. Mr. Shevock questioned how much parking would be required. Responding, President Clark indicated that they were only asking for the parking alongside the old Dover library, noting that the point was not to create a Wesley entity but to join the community. It was desired that students would be walking through town to attend health care courses from the main campus. President Clark believed that the parking, though minimal, would meet their needs because it would provide spaces for extra instructional professors, etc. He expressed the desire for people to be in the streets. His vision and hope that, at sometime in the future, if someone was brought in blindfolded to Bradford, Loockerman, or State Street, or to Wesley College and the blindfold was removed, that they would identify their location as Dover. President Clark desired that it would all look the same and that Wesley would not be a college in a town but the college of the town and the same community. Mr. Hare informed members that he had heard it said that to make a downtown area grow, “med or ed” is needed. He felt that this was something that would help downtown grow. Mr. Hare indicated that he had spoken to some commercial realtors, stating his belief that when the appraisal comes out and everything needed to make this building acceptable is determined, this would be a benefit. He indicated that the building had expenses that were costing the City and he was totally in favor of doing this. He felt it would be a benefit for the City and stated that if Wesley College decided to sell the building in 100 years, he did not care. Mr. Lewis questioned if there had been other bids received or solicited for the building. Responding, Mr. Hare stated that there had not. Mr. Neil noted that there had been a bid; however, the bidder did not identify what he would be using it for. Mr. Hare indicated that there were quite a few things that would have to be done that the City was not willing to do. Mr. Hutchison advised that there had also been many discussions with the State of Delaware pertaining to this building; therefore, there had been more than one (1). Mr. Hare noted that each time, there had been a cost of renovation. Mr. Lewis questioned if the property had been well advertised and Mr. Hare stated that it had been. Mr. Neil indicated that he did not think it had been advertised. Mr. Hare stated that the Economic Development Office had been trying to get rid of the building for the last five (5) years. Mr. Neil advised that the bid that he was aware of was unsolicited.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 11 (City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to the meeting, members of Council were advised that during their meeting of October 21, 2015, the President’s Counsel on Public/Private Partnerships and the Future of City Hall, Weyandt Hall, Former Dover Library, and Other City Properties considered an unsolicited proposal for the purchase of 45 South State Street and 5 East Reed Street from Mr. L. D. Shank, Dover Renaissance LLC and this matter was referred to City Council for discussion in Executive Session.) (City Clerk’s Office Note: According to Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, the building, which was vacated by the library in September 2012, was briefly used by the State for the restoration of artifacts damaged in a fire at Legislative Hall and utilized by City staff for several months during the roof replacement at 5 East Reed Street. He advises that the building has never been placed on the market for sale with any real estate company or advertised for sale in any public venue.) Ms. Stewart indicated that she would not be voting on this matter because she is a member of the Wesley College Alumni Association. The Committee referred the Wesley College proposal to City Council for a final decision at their next meeting. Mr. Hare moved to defer the Wesley College proposal for the former Dover Public Library building for future consideration, seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mr. Neil noted that it was a good idea to defer this item. The motion to defer the Wesley College proposal for the former Dover Public Library building for future consideration was unanimously carried. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE Proposed Ordinance #2016-18 Amending Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 27 - Corridor Overlay Zone 1 (COZ-1), Subsection 27.66 - Building Height (Sponsors: Hare and Hutchison) Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, advised members that Proposed Ordinance #2016-18 related to the height of buildings within the Corridor Overlay Zone 1 (COZ-1). She explained that this Zoning Text Amendment was being brought forth by an applicant who sought sponsors of several City Council members. Mrs. Melson-Williams noted that the applicant, Mr. Phil McGinnis, McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company, was in the audience. She informed members that the Corridor Overlay Zone is a zoning overlay that exists along the corridors of Route 8, Saulsbury Road, and McKee Road in the City. This Corridor Overlay Zone places additional design parameters on development along those corridors in order to present a more urbanized style of land development activity in that area. Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated that one (1) of the components is a building height

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 12 limitation of two (2) stories or 35 feet, which may be more restrictive than the base zoning of properties along that corridor, where the building height may be taller. This proposal would make changes to how the building height is presented on the property. Within the first 100 feet of depth of the property from the corridor, it would continue to be limited to two (2) stories or 35 feet in height, but beyond that 100-foot depth it would revert to whatever the base zoning allows. Mrs. Melson- Williams advised, for example, that some areas along that corridor are zoned C-2A, which allows for a building height up to six (6) stories and 75 feet. Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that the proposal would be an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, it would begin at the committee level, would be referred to City Council to set the public hearing dates required for the Planning Commission and City Council, and final action would be taken by City Council. Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that the ordinance specifically related to building height within the Corridor Overlay Zone and staff’s recommendation would be formally presented with the Planning Commission part of the process. She noted that staff assisted Mr. McGinnis in crafting the language for his concept. She indicated that staff recognized that there are some issues within the Corridor Overlay Zone related to how some other portions of the Zoning Ordinance had been updated over the years, but had not had the opportunity to concentrate on the Corridor Overlay Zone, noting that this was on their to-do list. Members were provided correspondence dated July 12, 2016 from Michael J. Harrington, Jr., President, Kent County Association of Realtors, regarding Proposed Ordinance #2016-18 - Corridor Overlay Zone Height Limitation Amendment. Mr. Sudler questioned if there had been feedback from property owners or community members in the surrounding areas and, if so, what the recognized issues were. Responding, Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated that the current agenda item was the first step in the process of the proposed zoning amendment, that a public hearing would be advertised, and the community would then have the opportunity to give input. She indicated that there were several development applications along the corridor that would probably be interested in the potential change and what it may mean for their development opportunities in those areas. Mr. Neil questioned if the height of the building would interfere with the Dover Air Force Base and the planes flying over. Responding, Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated that it would not, noting that the Corridor Overlay Zone is not on the east side of town but is specific to the corridors of Route 8, Saulsbury Road, and McKee Road. She advised that there is a different zoning overlay in the area of the Dover Air Force Base called the Airport Environs Overlay Zone that has some limitations related to height.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 13 Mr. Neil asked if other buildings could also be expanded in height if this were permitted. Responding, Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated that there was potential that others could seek to add stories along that corridor if they were in a portion of the property that would be subject to this limitation. Mr. Neil questioned if this would add to the assessments. In response, Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that the tax liability could potentially be impacted if buildings were being expanded or renovated. Mr. Anderson stated he was glad that this was coming about, stating that he had been concerned about a lot of the restrictions in the Corridor Overlay Zone. He questioned if there was a timetable for the whole concept to be evaluated. In response, Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that this was identified as one (1) of the research projects for potential zoning text amendments that the Planning Office needed to put on their list, noting that there are currently others that have higher priority. She noted it was identified several years ago when staff focused on some of the commercial zones, clarifying uses, and some of the bulk standards, and this would be a natural next step to that; however, there was no time frame for this. The Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2016-18. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting.) Review of Active Recreation Area Plan (Request for Cash-in-Lieu) - The Grande, Building 4: Planned Neighborhood Design - Senior Citizen Housing Option (Planning Reference C-15-04) Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, advised members that this item was related to the project known as The Grande. She noted that the Active Recreation Area Plan was associated with construction of a fourth building on the north side of Forrest Avenue just to the east of the Modern Maturity Center. Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that three (3) buildings were in place and a fourth building project would soon start. As part of the approval process for this building, the active recreation area was reviewed, and there are requirements for the amount of active recreation area based on the number of dwelling units provided on the site. Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that a number of recreational amenities were constructed previously with the three (3) buildings, including items such as walking paths, horseshoe pits, shuffleboard, a swingset, benches, and picnic tables. The cumulative effect of those amenities still left the applicant with a deficiency in active recreation area for the project. Mrs. Melson-Williams informed members that this was proposed to be satisfied by a cash-in-lieu donation at the time, noting that the Zoning Ordinance specifically outlines how that cash-in-lieu amount is calculated. She stated that, as part of the procedure, the amount, once calculated, must be presented to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee for confirmation, to City Council, and to the Planning Commission for acceptance. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Planning Office had received the appraisal,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 14 which is the starting point for calculating the cash-in-lieu amount and is based on a land value per acre and the amount of recreation area that is deficient. This resulted in a cash-in-lieu requirement of $22,914. She advised that cash-in-lieu payments for active recreation area are specifically designated for the Parkland Reserve Fund and earmarked for the development of parkland throughout the City. Mrs. Melson- Williams explained that members were being asked to consider accepting that calculation amount. The process going forward would be for Council to consider the Committee’s recommendation and then the Planning Commission would consider this amount during their August meeting. Staff recommended acceptance of the $22,914 cash-in-lieu of recreation area construction donation, as the amount complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee meeting was held with Chairman Cole presiding. Presentation - Stormwater Utility Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised that the City of Dover Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study represented close to a year of background work associated with a potential stormwater utility. He indicated that this would be important because it lays out a conceptual foundation for a potential avenue to fund infrastructure and infrastructure repairs going into the future. Mr. Koenig noted that there had been discussions for a long time regarding difficulties with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, stating that the stormwater utility concept could potentially provide value to the City in the permit over time. He indicated that this would be a very detailed and technical discussion tonight, and the point would be to introduce the concept to Council and address any questions they may have. Mr. Koenig stated that no direct action was needed because this was the first of many discussions that would be held over a 12 to 18 month period if Council wishes to move forward. Mr. David Athey, URS Corporation/AECOM, reviewed a presentation entitled, “City of Dover Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study.” He noted that there would be many details if the intent was to explore some of the issues, develop a framework for what a utility might look like, and start honing in on potential costs. In regard to Slide 2, Mr. Athey explained that a stormwater utility is totally different from existing enterprise funds, since the water, sewer, and electric utilities have meters so that usage can be gauged. Mr. Athey commented that it is impractical to put a meter on

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 15 stormwater; therefore, there are various ways that an approximate measure can be done. He stated that members may be asking why there is a fee to handle rain, and explained that rain has been and will be around forever and is natural; however, stormwater is manmade and brings with it a lot of quality issues. In reference to Slide 5, Mr. Athey advised that unmanaged stormwater can do a number of things and can overtax drainage systems, referring to an event that occurred on Water Street two (2) years ago. Referring to Slide 6, Mr. Athey explained that the main focus of a stormwater utility is that it is a very stable source of revenue. He noted that if there are a couple of northeasters, there is a lot of focus on drainage; however, it is not uncommon for a public body’s money for drainage systems to dry up if there is a drought for a couple of years. Mr. Athey stated that a steady, constant investment is needed, and fluctuating investment is not good asset management. He commented that a stormwater utility must be adequate and that there had been approximately a year of effort of really looking at what the City’s costs are. Mr. Athey explained that such a utility can be flexible and stormwater rates can be modified depending on changing conditions, as water, sewer, and electric rates can be modified, and it is equitable. He informed members that this idea had been around Delaware for approximately 10 years, going back to former Governor Ruth Ann Minner’s task force, which concluded its work in 2006. In reference to Slide 9, Mr. Athey stated that the costs of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit compliance were not diminishing as permitting requirements increase. He advised that many quantity issues were not currently being addressed. In regard to funding stability, he indicated that this would allow funding for drainage infrastructure to be taken from the General Fund. It would no longer compete with things that are totally different from stormwater, and this would allow for a very focused, detailed, and well understood effort for costs to manage these programs. Referring to Slide 11, Mr. Athey reviewed the steps that had been taken to date. He informed members that he worked with the City a little more than a year ago on helping to get a grant from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), which helped to offset half of the costs of the study. There was a detailed investigation into City programs and expenditures and a significant amount of Geographic Information System (GIS) electronic mapping analyses. A complicated spreadsheet model was developed that can be modified to develop different scenarios, and this was used to develop preliminary costs. In reference to Slide 12, Mr. Athey pointed out that the EFC logo at the bottom right of the slides represented the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland, which was a subcontractor to URS/AECOM. He indicated that they are very good at public outreach materials, which is one (1) of the City’s permitting obligations. Mr. Athey stated that EFC made enhancements to the website, came up

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 16 with a couple of presentations that were posted, and developed a citizen survey to gauge people’s understanding of stormwater issues and recommendations. In reviewing Slide 13, Enterprise Funds and Rates, Mr. Athey indicated that it is easier to develop assessments for individual properties for the City’s Water/Wastewater and Electric Funds because properties can be metered. This cannot be done with stormwater. He noted that this type of work would have been very difficult 20 years ago before electronic mapping and GIS systems came in to vogue and greatly simplified things. Mr. Athey indicated that because stormwater cannot be metered, a surrogate or proxy is needed to estimate how much any property is contributing to the system. Referring to Slide 14, Mr. Athey explained that there is a very direct correlation between the amount of imperviousness, relating to rooftops, pavement, and gravel on a property, and the amount of run-off. Mr. Athey stated that with aerial photography it is possible to determine, with fairly high accuracy, the amount of impervious surface, and the State of Delaware furnishes this every several years. This information can be overlaid on top of an aerial tax parcel map to determine relatively precisely how many square feet or acres of impervious surface are on a given property. The amount of impervious surface then becomes the proxy. In response to Mr. Blakeman, Mr. Athey explained that the impervious surface includes the rooftops, paving, driveways, parking lots, sheds, sidewalks and anything that will not let water seep into the ground. Mr. Neil questioned how wetlands affect stormwater. Responding, Mr. Athey indicated that wetlands are more a receiver than a discharger of stormwater. The desire is to seek to develop a proxy or surrogate for the amount of run-off leaving a property. If a parcel is nothing but wetlands, very little runoff is leaving the property. Mr. Athey noted that if five (5) acres of a 10-acre parcel are developed, it would have much less run-off than a 10-acre parcel that is totally built out. Mr. Neil commented that his community has 223 homes and a drainage ditch which fills. He was unsure where the drainage ditch goes or how it affects the community. Mr. Hare questioned if this would be similar to a rain tax and if more would be paid when it rains more. Responding, Mr. Athey indicated that some people refer to it as a rain tax. He explained that more would be paid if there was more runoff from a property, which relates to being equitable. Mr. Athey stated that a lot of municipalities and counties do not have a water and sewer fund, as the City of Dover does, and these jurisdictions pay for stormwater out of their general or sewer funds. For clarification, he advised that a 10-acre parking lot with one (1) office and one (1) bathroom would contribute tons of runoff; however, if sewer revenues were used, they would hardly be paying anything. He noted that a large facility with many bathrooms and other production facilities would pay a different rate. Mr. Athey

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 17 explained the desire was for the rate not to be based on the amount it rains but on the amount of stormwater leaving a property. Mr. Hare commented that if there was no rain for 12 months, there would be no stormwater leaving his property. Responding, Mr. Athey pointed out that there would still be permitting obligations, pipes that fail, and stream banks that are eroded up to the point of the drought. He noted that any utility, whether water, sewer, electric, or stormwater, needs a fairly steady level of investment to be properly managed. Responding to Mr. Lewis regarding how the fee paid by property owners would be proportional to their impact on the systems, Mr. Athey referred to Slide 14. He indicated that the amount of impervious cover on every parcel in Dover could be measured, estimating that there were approximately 10,800 parcels in the City, approximately 80% of which are single-family lots. Mr. Athey advised that it would be administratively burdensome to measure the imperviousness on each of these lots, noting that they only make up approximately 17% of the total imperviousness in the City. He stated that it takes a lot of time and does not provide much additional information. Conversely, he indicated that non-residential uses, such as commercial lots and lots on the Route 13 corridor are predominantly larger lots with a lot of imperviousness; therefore, it would be worth the time and effort to calculate the square footage on each of those lots. Mr. Athey stated that what is commonly done in single-family uses is to use tiers. In reference to Slide 15, Mr. Athey explained that an Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) was developed that is an average amount of imperviousness on smaller-zoned parcels. A commercial facility that is 40 times that area would have 40 ERUs, and this would address the equity issue. Responding to Mr. Blakeman, Mr. Athey explained that the schematic on Slide 15 depicted a house, driveway, and a sidewalk. He stated that the surface area that water will run off would be measured. Mr. Athey indicated that there are ratios, development intents, and other ways to do this; however, he chose a more simplistic route. He advised that purely the amount of imperviousness was considered, and the amount of imperviousness does not change whether it is on a 10-acre or a one (1) acre parcel. Mr. Athey informed members that through a fairly time-consuming exercise, working with Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, and the Public Works Department staff, a detailed analysis and GIS mapping were developed to determine the amount of imperviousness on residential parcels and then aggregated and averaged. Referring to Slide 16, he explained that the RG-1, RG-2, RG-3, and RM-1 zoning districts had an average imperviousness in the general area of 2,200 square feet. The RM-2, R-7, and R-8 zoning districts averaged to 3,060 square feet or 1.4 ERUs. Larger lots in the R-10, R-15, and R-20 were approximately 4,850 square feet or over two (2) times the base ERU rate.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 18 Mr. Blakeman noted that there were would have been many parcels larger than 2,200 square feet and many smaller to reach an average of 2,200 feet. Mr. Athey stated that parcel size fluctuated; however, there was a break where none were averaging until close to the 3,000 square foot level, when the next zoning district began. He advised that the idea was to balance administrative efficiency with equity, explaining that it would be possible to continue to measure each parcel in the City; however, it would be very time consuming. In addition, if someone were to put an addition on their home in the future or do additional paving, it would be necessary to account for this change, which would become an administrative burden in future years. Mr. Athey noted that this would be a policy discussion. Mr. Blakeman expressed concern about some of the smaller homeowners being lumped into the group. In addition, he noted that owners of larger properties would be penalized less than others. He indicated that he would like to get a feel for how much inequity there would be in the process. Responding, Mr. Athey indicated that they could obtain this information, reiterating that this would be a policy discussion. He advised that some of the 1,500 or so stormwater utilities across the country measure each and every lot and that there is no wrong answer. Mr. Anderson asked if there was information regarding the median figures, where half the properties would fall above and half below, to compare with the average figures. In response, Mr. Athey stated that he did not have this information but this could easily be done. Referring to Slide 17, Mr. Athey pointed out that single-family residential lots, which comprised approximately 80% of the total parcels, accounted for only 16% of the overall land. He noted that most of the City is commercial land and that Dover Air Force Base is huge. In reference to Slide 18, Mr. Athey advised that it is not uncommon for tax-exempt entities to challenge a stormwater utility legally on the basis that they are property tax exempt. He informed members that case law is pretty consistently solid behind tax-exempt entities paying into the stormwater utility, just as they may pay a water, sewer, or electric bill, assuming that all of the i’s are dotted and all revenues received from the utility are being used for stormwater issues. Mr. Athey indicated that for this study, in coordination with the City of Dover Public Works and Planning staff, it was decided that Dover Air Force Base would be considered an anomaly because the Base is truly a city in and of itself. He noted that the Base has its own systems and maintenance people, even though it is a large percentage of overall imperviousness in the City, and this would be a policy question. Other than the Base, it was assumed that all of the square footage would have an associated fee. Ms. Arndt asked if tax exempt properties would pay into the stormwater fund. Responding, Mr. Athey explained that this was also a policy question that the City would have to address. His personal opinion was yes, and he advised that case law in general supports this; however, this did not mean that every entity that has stormwater utilities had not carved out some uses in public policy.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 19 In reference to Slide 19, Mr. Athey indicated that existing levels of service were determined to set a benchmark. It was estimated that there were at least 27 employees that spend at least 80% of their time doing stormwater-related work, and he believed that this cost was estimated at approximately $700,000. Mr. Athey stated there were many vehicles and some capital projects, noting that the City had discussed the Tar Ditch project for some time. Referring to Slide 20, Mr. Athey noted that the Public Works staff maintains a number of stormwater-related structures and facilities. Referring to Slides 21 - 23, Mr. Athey stated that the permitting requirements were not decreasing; therefore, additional expenditures were anticipated. He explained the features of achieving the compliance and optimum levels of services. Mr. Athey noted that the optimum level would include ongoing maintenance of privately-owned stormwater management structures. He indicated that various other programs could be put into place to have a more gold-plated program. This would include funding for proposed future capital projects. In reference to Slide 24, Preliminary Rates and Credits, Mr. Athey stressed that a lot of assumptions were made and the data was not perfect. He reviewed the estimated rates and credits for the existing program, compliance level of service, and optimum level of service, stating that the compliance level of service included additional expenditures to pay for various MS4-related programs. The optimum level would include the capital program needs and had a significantly higher rate. Mr. Athey stated that many facilities have stormwater structures on site, such as ponds and more modern controls such as bioswales. He stated that the argument is often made that if a property has some sort of stormwater control or if a subdivision has all the lots drained to a stormwater control, they should receive some sort of credit, and this should also apply to commercial properties. Mr. Athey advised that a policy decision would have to be made in this regard. He noted that a 33% credit was assumed and that there are many different ways to assign credits; however, in the interest of feasibility, it was decided to keep this fairly simple. In regard to Slide 25, Mr. Athey indicated that a number of policy questions would need to be raised, such as the exemption for Dover Air Force Base. He noted that an impervious cover cap was set at two (2) million square feet. Mr. Athey advised that only nine (9) or ten (10) properties in Dover were larger than this size. He stated that the racetrack, which is in two (2) parcels, fits into that category, which would artificially lower their fee, and whether or how this would be handled would be a policy question. Mr. Athey had also assumed certain escalation rates for all the City’s expenditures. He reiterated that the mapping was not perfect, noting if there were a second phase to this, there would need to be a little more specificity. Mr. Athey informed members that Dover is fairly complicated from a planning standpoint in that single-family uses are allowed in multi-family districts and, to some degree, vice versa. Certain assumptions were made regarding how many single-family uses were in multi-family zones, which he had termed a “filter.” Mr. Athey stated that this was a little arbitrary, but he felt it was fairly close. If a

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 20 point was reached where a defendable fee was needed, he felt this would have to be looked at more closely. In regard to Slide 26, Mr. Athey indicated that the fee structure would relate to the ERUs, the type of use, and then various credits. Referring to Slide 27, Fee Examples - Single-Family Residential Lot, Mr. Athey explained that the tier rate for Tier 1 would be the same as the base rate because this is the base. If there were a credit for a stormwater control, it would be 33% of the fee. He noted that, in this case, if the compliance level rate was $3.25 per ERU, with the credit the rate would be reduced to approximately $2.17. Mr. Athey reviewed the fee examples for Tier 2 and Tier 3 properties on Slides 28 and 29. Ms. Arndt noted that there may be a large house, with more impervious surface, on a large lot, with more pervious surface for the water to run off and dissipate and, therefore, less stormwater issues for the City. Referring to the examples, she felt that a larger house with a larger lot should be paying less than a larger home on a small lot since there would be more runoff. Responding, Mr. Athey stated that some places enact a development intensity factor or ratio to reflect this point. He noted that 5,000 square feet of imperviousness on a one (1) acre lot would have more runoff than on a 10-acre lot. Mr. Athey indicated that this is a policy question, noting that it would be more complicated and difficult to explain but is doable, and some people do it. He reiterated that, in the interest of a feasibility study, it was chosen to keep it fairly simple. Ms. Arndt suggested looking at the possibility of having a credit if the impervious surface was 5% or 10% of the lot to account for the runoff on the property. In response, Mr. Athey advised that a previous client had asked them to consider soil types, which is another complicating factor. Mr. Athey reviewed Slide 30, Fee Examples - Commercial, explaining the credits for stormwater controls. Mr. Blakeman stated that pervious concrete had been developed in response to the problems in New Orleans. He explained that water percolates down through pervious concrete, and since it is not runoff, owners do not have to pay. Mayor Christiansen expressed his opinion that, if this system is implemented, funds should be specifically dedicated to infrastructure, where it was supposed to go, rather than to other General Fund issues, and that doing anything else would be totally unconscionable. He stated that he had seen what had been done with transfer taxes and other things that were supposed to be dedicated to specific budget items that suddenly became part and parcel of the General Fund or other issues that they were not dedicated to. Noting that he does not have a vote in this matter, Mayor Christiansen insisted that the money be lockboxed from Council spending for anything other than a deemed emergency. Mr. Athey agreed with

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 21 Mayor Christiansen, noting that the City could open itself up to legal challenges by not doing this. Mr. Lewis felt the question was whether this system was needed. Mr. Athey responded that that would be a budget discussion. He indicated that, in working with Public Works and the Planning Departments, expenditures of approximately $1.3M or $1.4M per year had been identified, stating that he could get the exact number. Mr. Athey advised that compliance for MS4 would add a couple hundred thousand dollars to this. In addition, he was unsure how capital projects estimated at several million dollars would be paid for. Mr. Anderson stated that much of this was now being paid by the Wastewater Fund and questioned if this fund would be lowered, if funds would credited to people, or if people would be double charged. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that existing expenses are General Fund expenses and not Water or Wastewater Fund expenses. He indicated that the requirements were for the City to get to a compliance level of expenditures, whether through the General Fund or an alternative financing mechanism. The stormwater utility would be an alternative funding mechanism that would lay out financing for a public improvement among all contributing properties. Mr. Koenig stated that there would not be cutouts for properties, noting that the equity issue would have to be addressed. Mr. Koenig indicated that if the City does not identify alternative funding mechanisms, there would be a need to look at general obligation bond debt for large projects, such as the Tar Ditch, or the tax rate. He explained that the general obligation bond rate and General Fund expenses related to MS4 would be paid off by tax revenues or some other fee that is feeding the General Fund. Mr. Koenig stated that this alternative financing mechanism could be called a rain tax, a development tax, or a number of things, but its purpose would be to obtain equity in addressing an infrastructure issue that everyone has in common. Mr. Koenig did not believe that the fees mentioned, such as $5 a month or $7 per residential house were unreasonable to address infrastructure; however, he noted that the fees in regard to large commercial or industrial properties get very high. He advised members that the message being proposed was not that it was being proposed to hit Dover Downs with a rain tax of an unidentified number of thousands of dollars, it was whether members were interested in alternative financing solutions that were being used in some areas of the country, or if they wish to determine that these are General Fund issues and that the City must accommodate bond issues or additional tax increases as the financing mechanism. Mr. Anderson questioned why this would necessarily be a General Fund issue as opposed to a Water/Wastewater issue when it comes to infrastructure like the Tar Ditch. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that expenses of the water/wastewater utility are all dedicated to a specific, recognized enterprise utility with a certificate to serve. He noted that this matter is a little different in that it is very difficult to get an accurate measurement; therefore a measurement must be estimated. Mr. Koenig stated that the amount of water used by a water utility customer is based on how their faucet is turned on, is very definable, and is read and billed every month; however,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 22 stormwater utility billing is based on estimates. He noted that rainfall is not homogeneous across the City, and the calculations made to obtain the estimated impervious area, unless done parcel by parcel, are estimated or averaged. There is a certain margin of inequity that people can claim, depending on the public policy decisions that are made, and the City would have to be able to defend this. He indicated that assigning ERUs to zoning categories is defendable by running through the calculations. In regard to stormwater designs and controls, Mr. Koenig advised that the question becomes how detailed a stormwater utility is desired and whether it should include grass mowing around stormwater ponds, or if this would still be a General Fund expense. He questioned if it would get into the public outreach costs, or if the utility would only be related to the capital infrastructure engineering and construction. Mr. Koenig stated that this would depend upon how much weight is desired to put on the stormwater utility to carry the burden of all of the MS4 permitting and the infrastructure that is associated with the handling of stormwater. Mr. Koenig noted that when it is not raining, there are no problems with stormwater, but when it starts raining, there are flooding problems, and undersized pipe, so future financing mechanisms will be needed for the major costs to resolve these problems. Mr. Anderson questioned if a reduction in property taxes would be proposed if the stormwater utility were implemented, since items would be pulled from the General Fund. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that although the current presentation did not address this, he felt that there should be some equalization. If $1M in expenses was pulled from the General Fund, he felt it would seem reasonable to reduce the General Fund burden by $1M and the tax rate could be recalculated, everything else being equal. Mr. Neil questioned how Kent County Conservation District fits into this. In response, Mr. Koenig indicated that when a development comes in, development application fees are paid to the Conservation District related to design, review, and construction. If the utility were created, he felt there would be less burden on the Conservation District in the long run because the City would have a better mechanism to control maintenance on stormwater management facilities. Mr. Koenig stated that currently if a homeowners’ association has a pond that they are not maintaining, there is a routing through the Conservation District. If this utility were created, he assumed that additional legal authority would be given to the City to compel those types of maintenance to be done very quickly by the homeowners’ association, or the City would be able to step in under the utility and create those improvements. Mr. Koenig informed members that Council had approved resolutions for several subdivisions that had entered into the Kent County maintenance district. The City put a caveat in those resolutions saying that the City had no objections to those subdivisions entering into the County maintenance district if they chose to. If the City creates a stormwater utility, Mr. Koenig believed that the City would want to ensure that those properties revert out of the County district and into the City’s utility so that everyone is on the same footing. Mr. Koenig advised

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 23 that as the City gets bigger and has a utility 15-30 years down the road, the City would be on better footing if it had its own approval process. The City would assume the Conservation District duties of being able to review plans, etc. Mr. Koenig stated that downtown redevelopment is very difficult for the City because there is no way to trade stormwater, and stormwater created on one (1) property cannot be moved to another property for treatment. He indicated that utility planning tends to encourage regional or multi-property addressing of stormwater management because there is an umbrella government entity that can help facilitate this issue. Mr. Koenig noted that a couple of developments in the area were sharing ponds, and this seemed to be working. It was unknown what would happen in the future if parties cannot agree on what needs to be done. He advised that if the utility were created, there is potential that the City, at some point, would want to take over the types of functions currently performed by the Conservation District. Mr. Koenig advised that the City is in partnership with the Conservation District, which is part of the City’s MS4 permit, so there is no intent to do this immediately, since it would be necessary for the City to add staff. If the utility were set up, Council could make a better argument to the State saying that the City would like to control its own destiny with development and hire staff to address those issues. Without the utility, Mr. Koenig did not believe the City would have a very strong case to become a delegated agency at the State because of the way the system currently works. He advised that the utility was not being proposed under any circumstances so that the City can become a delegated agency, but this is something that could happen in the future if the circumstances are correct. Mr. Hutchison asked if Mr. Athey had looked at the stormwater utilities in Lewes and Wilmington. Responding, Mr. Athey explained that he had helped to set up the utility in Lewes. He was not as familiar with Wilmington’s utility, which was enacted 10 years ago; however, he noted that Wilmington has a combined sewer, with sanitary and stormwater in the same line, and has enormous permitting problems that they must address. Mr. Athey advised that Lewes had kept their rate low. He did not believe they were funding capital projects from it but that it was purely for operational recovery. Mr. Hutchison asked Mr. Athey to go to Wilmington to look at this specifically. He noted that the City of Dover has a larger land mass than the City of Wilmington, and he felt it would be interesting to look at their project, the cost, and how it has impacted them and return with a recommendation. Mr. Athey stated that he could do this; however, he felt it would be an apples and oranges comparison because Wilmington spent tens of millions of dollars on an enormous storage tunnel to store their combined sewage. He noted that Dover does not have those issues to deal with. Mr. Athey indicated that he would be more than happy to develop a summary of some of the things that Wilmington was doing. Mr. Blakeman stated that the City of Dover owns the streets and questioned if the City would be charged a fee for stormwater control. Mr. Athey explained that this had been debated, noting that the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) owns some of streets as well. He stated that enacting a fee for DelDOT would not

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 24 be easy to do and noted that DelDOT maintains a lot of their storm drainage infrastructure. Mr. Athey indicated that everyone was not on the same page as far as who should be maintaining what. In regard to City streets, he indicated that this would involve one (1) department writing a check to another and felt that this did not seem worth it. Ms. Arndt noted that a survey of residents had been referenced earlier in the presentation and questioned how many residents were surveyed and what their responses were. Responding, Mr. Athey indicated that the EFC did this survey, stating his belief that there were approximately 70 - 80 responses and a summary was compiled. He offered to make this available. Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT (PRELIMINARY-UNAUDITED) Members were provided the Quarterly Revenue Report (Preliminary-Unaudited) as of June 30, 2016. Staff recommended acceptance of the report. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Quarterly Revenue Report (Preliminary-Unaudited) as of June 30, 2016. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. COUNCIL APPOINTMENT - COMPENSATION COMMISSION - JEAN TAYLOR - TWO (2) YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE MAY 14, 2018 (Deferred during the Annual Meeting of May 9, 2016) Councilman Hare recommended the appointment of Mrs. Jean Taylor to serve on the Compensation Commission for a two-year term to expire May 14, 2018, to fill the expired term of Louise Webb. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the appointment of Mrs. Taylor, as recommended by Councilman Hare. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS - RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION - THREE (3) YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE JULY 26, 2019 Mayor Christiansen requested the following appointments/reappointments to the Historic District Commission for three-year terms to expire July 26, 2019: Eric S. Czerwinski, Professional (To fill the expired term of Charles A. Salkin) Richard Scrafford, Professional By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the appointments/reappointments to the Historic District Commission, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen, seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 25 FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-18 Council President Slavin reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers, on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government,” or by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. Since the ordinance amends the Zoning Code, a public hearing is required. Staff recommended referral of the amendment to the Planning Commission on August 15, 2016 and that a public hearing be set for September 12, 2016 at 7:30 p.m., at which time final action by Council will take place. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, informed members that this is a Council-sponsored ordinance that would amend the Corridor Overlay Zone, which includes properties along Route 8, west of the railroad tracks, as well as properties on Saulsbury and McKee Roads. She stated that currently no building can exceed 35 feet, or two (2) stories within those areas. Mrs. Townshend explained that the proposed amendment would keep the 35-foot, two-story restriction for the first 100 feet from the property line, and then allow for the zoning district height to be applied beyond the first 100 feet. This will keep the buildings lower closer to the road, but allow for height beyond 100 feet from the property line. Mr. Hare moved to refer the amendments and set a public hearing before City Council for September 12, 2016 at 7:30 p.m., as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried with Mr. Lewis voting no. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-18 AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 27 - CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE 1 (COZ-1), SUBSECTION 27.66 - BUILDING HEIGHT (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee) UPDATE ON PROPERTY TAX BILLING ISSUE Mr. Anderson informed members that he had received some complaints regarding the 30-day notice that traditionally happens for tax billing. He reminded members that some of the bills for the property taxes went out later than normal because of problems with some of the multi-unit taxes. Mr. Anderson explained that, now that people are receiving their tax bills, he has received complaints that they need the 30 days, particularly since the taxes are a little bit higher. He stated that these individuals want a month to adjust, rather than receiving the bill and having a couple of weeks to pay it while other people have received their bills and with proper notice. Mr. Anderson indicated that the mortgage companies and big banks had plenty of notice; however, a few thousand people were being overlooked. He requested that the City provide a couple weeks’ extension for the people who received their bills late, so that they would have the same fairness as everyone else. Mr. Anderson moved that the people who received their property tax bills late receive 30 days to pay their property taxes, seconded by Mr. Sudler.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 26 Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Anderson clarified that these individuals would have 30 days from the date they received their bill, explaining that instead of their bills being due August 1, 2016, they would be due August 15, 2016. Mrs. Cheryl Bundek, City Assessor, advised that staff was currently aware of approximately 159 properties that were affected and asked if it would be possible to do this on a case-by-case basis as individuals call or come in. She explained that she could not just pick and choose which properties to provide the 30-day extension to, noting that some of them had paid. Mrs. Bundek stated that staff would be able to keep track much easier if they are able to take care of this as individuals call or come in and explain that they had a multiple billing issue. In response, Mr. Anderson stated that there is definitely a list of people who received their bills late. He indicated that some of these individuals will pay because it is not an issue, and for those who are late, staff would know when they come in late. Mr. Slavin asked what the effect on the City’s cash flow would be if Council were to provide a 30-day extension to all tax payers. Responding, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, believed that the City’s cash flow would be okay with an extension to August 15, 2016, since it would only be two (2) weeks. Mr. Slavin asked what the effect would be if Council provided an extension to allow all tax bills to be due by August 31, 2016. In response, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City’s cash flow would be okay, explaining that staff might have to do a temporary advance from the Electric Fund for a couple of weeks, which is occasionally done when there is low cash flow. She noted that this would be the worst-case scenario, as she believed the General Fund would still be okay. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell confirmed that approximately 93% of the taxpayers pay within the first 30 days. She explained that the budget balance of approximately 8% equates to one (1) month, which provides the cash flow needed to make it through until property taxes are received. Mr. Slavin asked if Mr. Anderson and Mr. Sudler would consider withdrawing the current motion and introducing a motion to simply extend the tax deadline to August 31, 2016 for all taxpayers. Mr. Anderson noted that the banks are going to pay since this is already in the process. The motion that the people who received their property tax bills late receive 30 days to pay their property taxes was withdrawn. Mr. Anderson moved to extend the tax collection deadline to August 31, 2016 for all taxpayers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that, with the extreme heat being experienced recently, the electric and water systems are under heavy demands. He thought that both systems had performed very well and expected that to continue.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 27 Mr. Koenig stated that his thoughts were with the numerous City employees, across all departments, who are out in the heat. He indicated that, the last time he checked the weather forecast, at least another 15 days of heat was expected. Mr. Koenig thanked staff for their efforts to run the utility systems and to continue to provide service in the significant heat that the City is experiencing. Mr. Slavin noted that it occurred to him, as he came in this evening, that if the City were in the middle of a snow storm or about to have a snow storm, dire warnings would be sent out regarding the severe weather. He explained that this is just as serious but a much different version of severe weather, and it is one that requires us to carry on. Mr. Slavin stated that Council would keep in mind all of the workers that are outside during this time. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Slavin extended early wishes for a happy birthday to Councilman Anderson, whose birthday is July 29th. Mr. Hare stated that he attended the Fourth District Empowerment Barbecue Fair, hosted by Councilman Sudler at Mishoe Park on July 16, 2016. He noted that it was well attended and complimented Councilman Sudler’s ribs. Mr. Sudler announced that Mt. Zion AME Church, located on Queen and Fulton Streets, would be hosting its Annual Back to School and Community Fair on Saturday, August 13, 2016 from 11:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. He stated that Dr. Wilma Mishoe of Mt. Zion AME Church had invited the Mayor and members of Council to participate in the event by serving as celebrity chefs, helping to cook and serve their constituents hot dogs and hamburgers. Mr. Sudler thanked Councilmen Hare and Hutchison, State Representative Sean Lynn, Kent County Commissioner Brad Eaby, Mr. Greg Fuller, and all of the individuals who participated in his Fourth District Empowerment Barbecue Fair for coming out and making the event such a nice gathering. Mr. Anderson stated that citizens had made inquiries regarding ShotSpotter and reminded everyone that Viability of the ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection and Location Service was scheduled for discussion during the Council Committee of the Whole/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee scheduled for tomorrow evening, Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. He invited the public to attend the meeting to gain an understanding of this service and how it may or may not fit in with Dover at this time. Mr. Anderson announced that he would be celebrating his 19th wedding anniversary on July 26, 2016 and thanked his wife for 19 great years. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2016 PAGE 28 All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of July 25, 2016, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2016\07-25-2016 CORRECTED.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Presentation - “Dover Comic Con 2016”

EXHIBIT #1 City Council Meeting of 07/25/2016

One of our goals as a library is to provide our patrons with an experience that extends beyond the traditional expectations of a library.

Dover Comic Con Growth 2014-2016 12000 70 10000 60 8000 50 40 6000 30 4000 20 2000 10 0 0 2014 2015 2016 Artists Vendors Panels Food Trucks (Projected) 2014 2015 2016 Expected Attendance Actual Attendance

Other Comic Conventions Attendance per Day Dover Comic Con 2016 (Projected) Baltimore Comic Con Otakon Awesome Con 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Attendance per Day

Other Dover Events Attendance per Day Dover Comic Con 2016 (Projected) Big Barrel Country Music Festival 2015 Firefly Music Festival2012 Dover Days 2016 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 Attendance per Day

The above video is a Public Service Announcement prepared by WBOC

PETITION TO AMEND TEXT of Dover Code of Ordinances and Zoning Ordinance Report to the Dover City Council August 8, 2016 Proposed Changes: Text Amendments to the following:  Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22 – Building and Building Regulations, Article X – Rental Dwellings, Division 1 – Generally, Section 22-331  Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 26 – Business, Article II – Licenses, Section 26-31 – Definitions  Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 50 – Floods, Article III – Requirements in All Special Flood Hazard Areas, Section 50- 36 – Recreational Vehicles  Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 – Manufactured Homes  Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Article III – Stopping, Standing and Parking, Division I – Generally, Sections 106-123 and 106-128  Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 110 – Utilities, Article III – Water Service and Article IV – Sanitary Sewer Service  Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning (Zoning Ordinance) o Article 2 – Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, Section 1 o Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 8 – Mobile Home Park Zone o Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 22 – Airport Environs Overlay Zone o Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 24 – Planned Neighborhood Design o Article 4 – Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations o Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 – Supplementary Sign Regulations o Article 6 - Off Street parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities o Article 7 – Nonconforming Buildings and Uses o Article 12 – Definitions  Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Chapter 26 Businesses, Article II – Licenses and Chapter 66 – Manufactured Homes and Trailers

MI-16-10 Text Amendment: Manufactured Homes Report to City Council Page 2 of 4 Summary of Amendment: The proposed amendment would update the standards and terminology related to manufactured homes. The proposed amendment also implements standards for management and maintenance of land lease communities. Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing on July 18, 2016, where no members of the public spoke, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (8- 0) to recommend in favor of adoption of the proposed ordinance. Ordinance Number: Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 File Number: MI-16-10 Development of the Ordinance Following the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a manufactured home on a property within the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone), several residents and members of City Council expressed concerns about the appropriateness of this housing type within the One Family Residence Zones. The need for revisions to the code requirements in the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 – Manufactured Homes and Trailers, and Appendix B – Zoning was identified. Staff subsequently reviewed literature available about manufactured housing and a developed a number of recommendations related to Manufactured Housing to be considered for implementation. The initial recommendation involved amending the code to prohibit manufactured housing in the One Family Residence Zones and to refine definitions. Amendments to Zoning Ordinance, Article 12 –Definitions, to add a definition for “manufactured home” and to amend the definition for “dwelling, one family” to preclude manufactured homes were adopted with Ordinance #2015-20 (Application MI-15-13). Planning Commission recommended approval of these text amendments on December 16, 2015 and the Ordinance #2015-20 was adopted by City Council on January 11, 2016. The definitions as adopted are as follows: Dwelling, one-family: A permanent dwelling unit placed on a permanent foundation and designed and intended for use by only one family. One-family dwellings shall not include manufactured homes or mobile homes but shall include modular homes constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22—Buildings and Building Regulations. Manufactured home: A factory-built housing unit designed and constructed to meet the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code. A manufactured home is built on a chassis that supports the structural integrity of the home and to allow transport to the site. Factory-built units built to meet the HUD Code and constructed after the code took effect on June 15, 1976 are classified as "manufactured homes." Current Proposed Ordinance This second series of proposed text amendments (MI-16-10) were developed by the Planning Staff as part of this specific research/study project related to Manufactured Housing. This set of text amendments will update the standards and terminology throughout the Dover Code of

MI-16-10 Text Amendment: Manufactured Homes Report to City Council Page 3 of 4 Ordinance including the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the proposed Ordinance implements standards for management and maintenance of land lease communities. City Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee was presented with this proposed Ordinance #2016-16 at its June 14, 2015 Meeting. The Committee recommended approval of the Proposed Ordinance. Key components of this proposed Ordinance #2016-16:  Update of related terminology  Update of definitions for manufactured home and mobile home  Define and establish regulations for Land Lease Communities  Limitations on placements of recreational vehicles in Special Flood Hazard Areas  Revisions to Chapter 66 regarding licensing, taxation, placement of manufactured homes  Revisions to parking of recreational vehicles  Rename Mobile Home Park Zone (MHP) zoning district to Manufactured Housing Zone (MH) zoning district and update requirements of the zone. (Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §8)  Establish bulk and parking requirements in the MH zone  Clarify in the Land Use Compatibility Table that Manufactured Homes are not permitted uses in the Airport Environs Overlay Zone (AEOZ)  Update terminology in the Nonconforming Uses  Add definitions for condominium, land lease community, mobile home, and modular home  Establish Business License and associated fees for Land Lease Community Operator As text amendments are proposed to the Zoning Ordinance, a Public Hearing and Recommendation by the Planning Commission is required. City Council will conduct a Public Hearing and take Final Action on the proposed Ordinance #2016-16 at their meeting of August 8, 2016. Planning Review and Recommendations of Staff and the Planning Commission: The Planning Staff developed the proposed Ordinance #2016-16 regarding Manufactured Housing and Land Lease Communities and therefore, recommends its adoption. As a result of comments received from other Development Advisory Committee (DAC) members, Planning Office is currently reviewing these comments and may offer several minor clarifications to the proposed Ordinance. The comments are summarized below. DAC Agency Ordinance Proposed Revision Reason/Notes Review Comment Lines Electric 121-186 Add requirement that land lease To establish duty to community owners and coordinate electric equipment occupants of manufactured removal on unoccupied lots homes coordinate with City Customer Service regarding City Electric Equipment (electric meters, etc.) Fire Marshal 407-416 Clarify approving authority in Clarify approval regards to NFPA Publication responsibilities associated 501A with the Site Development

MI-16-10 Text Amendment: Manufactured Homes Report to City Council Page 4 of 4 Plan process and requirements Following a public hearing on July 18, 2016, where no members of the public spoke with regard to the proposed ordinance, the Planning Commission unanimously (8-0) recommended in favor of adoption of the ordinance.

C F MI-16-10 I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 07/06/16 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Text Amendment: Manufactured Homes FILE #: MI-16-10 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Deputy Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. Page 12-13, 8.81, the end states: Where applicable, the approving authority shall be the Dover Planning Commission. Need clarification on what they are/can approve. If it is in regards to NFPA, the AHJ/Fire Marshal should be the approving authority. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JUNE 29, 2016 APPLICATION: TEXT AMENDMENTS: MANUFACTURED HOMES FILE #: MI-16-10 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric and Public Works Departments CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell - Electric Jason A. Lyon, P.E. – Public Works CONTACT PHONE #: ELECTRIC - 302-736-7070 PUBLIC WORKS – 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed text amendments. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. Reference Sec. 66-5. Duties of land lease community owners and operators, page 5, paragraph a iv. Electric requests addition of a requirement for the land lease community owners and operators and/or occupants of the manufactured home to coordinate with Customer Service on unoccupied lots so City of Dover Electric equipment; e.g. meters, can be removed from the site until occupancy resumes again. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER / STORMWATER / SANITATION / STREETS / GROUNDS 1. None. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: June 29, 2016 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Text Amendments: Manufactured Homes FILE#: MI-16-10 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Jonathan T. Moore PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: DelDOT has no comments regarding city & state code at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: DelDOT has no recommendations at this time. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: DelDOT has no advisory comments at this time. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-16 WITH STAFF AMENDMENT #1 (SA#1) (Staff Amendment #1 indicated in green text) 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL 2 MET: 3 That Chapter 22 - Building and Building Regulations, Article X - Rental Dwellings, Division 1 - Generally, 4 Section 22-331 - Purpose; applicability; definitions; compliance, (c) - Definitions, (5) - Single-family 5 dwellings of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the 6 bold, blue text, as follows: 7 (5) Single-family dwellings means dwelling units operated singly, and separated from other units. 8 In general, this definition shall apply to single-family detached dwellings, including; mobile 9 homes and manufactured homes;, and attached units, including duplexes, and townhouses. 10 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 11 That Chapter 26 - Businesses, Article II - Licenses, Section 26-31 - Definitions of the Dover Code be 12 amended by deleting the definitions indicated in red strikeout, inserting the definitions indicated in bold, 13 blue text, and placing the new definition in the correct alphabetical order, as follows: 14 Land Lease Community Operator includes every person engaged in the business of providing 15 home sites and facilities, for rent or lease, to owners of separately owned dwellings, including owners 16 of mobile homes and manufactured homes. 17 Mobile home park includes every person engaged in the business of providing space and 18 facilities for rent or lease to owners of mobile home units, on a permanent or semipermanent basis. 19 Trailer park, recreational vehicle park and tenting recreation park include any person engaged 20 in the business of operating any place where space is furnished for units to park and hook up to or 21 use sanitary and/or electrical facilities. This definition shall not apply to mobile home parks. 22 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 23 That Chapter 50 - Floods, Article III - Requirements in All Special Flood Hazard Areas, Section 50-36 - 24 Recreational Vehicles of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and 25 inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 26 Sec. 50-36. - Recreational vehicles. 27 (a) Recreational vehicles in special flood hazard areas shall be fully licensed and ready for highway use, 28 and shall be placed on a site for less than 180 consecutive days. 29 (b) Recreational vehicles that are not fully licensed and ready for highway use, or that are to be placed 30 on a site for more than 180 consecutive days, shall meet the requirements of section 50-38 for 31 manufactured homes are prohibited in special flood hazard areas.

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 2 32 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 33 That Chapter 66, Manufactured Homes and Trailers, of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text 34 indicated in red strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 35 CHAPTER 66 - MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TRAILERS, MOBILE HOMES, AND LAND 36 LEASE COMMUNITIES 37 Sec. 66-1. - Definitions. 38 39 The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed 40 to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 41 Land lease community means a residential development typified by single ownership of the land 42 within the development, with the landowner retaining the rights of ownership. Home sites or 43 individual lots within the community are leased to individual homeowners, who retain customary 44 leasehold rights. 45 Manufactured home means a factory-built housing unit designed and constructed to meet the 46 Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and 47 Urban Development (HUD) Code. A manufactured home is built on a chassis that supports the 48 structural integrity of the home and to allow transport to the site. Factory-built units built to meet the 49 HUD Code and constructed after the code took effect on June 15, 1976 are classified as 50 "manufactured homes." 51 Mobile home means a single-family dwelling designed for transportation, after fabrication, on 52 streets and highways on its own wheels or on flatbeds or other trailers, and arriving at the site where 53 it is to be occupied as a dwelling, complete and ready for occupancy, except for minor and incidental 54 unpacking and assembly operations, location of jacks or foundations, connections to utilities and the 55 like. The term "mobile home" shall not include a single-family dwelling which is designed to be placed 56 on a permanent foundation, is not designed to be readily movable after the original occupancy as a 57 single-family dwelling, and conforms to the city's building, plumbing, electrical and housing codes 58 factory-built housing unit constructed on a chassis and completed before June 15, 1976. Prior to the 59 HUD code, mobile homes were not subject to uniform construction or safety standards. 60 Permanently placed mobile home means a single-family dwelling designed for transportation, 61 after fabrication, on streets and highways on its own wheels or on flatbeds or other trailers, and 62 arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling, complete and ready for occupancy, except 63 for placement upon a permanent, unmovable foundation, removal of all wheels and axles, and other 64 minor incidental operations, such as unpacking, connections or utilities and the like. The term 65 "permanently placed mobile home" shall be construed as being synonymous with that of the term 66 "single-family dwelling," a dwelling which is designed to be placed on a permanent foundation, is not 67 designed to be readily movable after the original occupancy as a single-family dwelling, and conforms 68 to the city's building, plumbing, electrical and housing codes, except for the purpose of zoning in 69 which it shall be considered a mobile home. 70 Owner of a manufactured home or mobile home means the person designated in the vehicle title 71 of the manufactured home or mobile home, whether the title is issued by this state or by some other state.

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 3 72 Owner of a permanently placed mobile home manufactured home means the person designated 73 in the vehicle or real property title of the mobile home permanently placed manufactured home, 74 whether the title is issued by this state or by some other state, and such person must also be the owner of 75 the lot upon which the mobile home is permanently affixed. The term "lot" shall mean a parcel of 76 land that conforms to the multiple ownership provisions of the laws of the state dealing with unit 77 properties and condominiums, and must be located within a mobile home park. 78 Permanently placed manufactured home means a factory-built housing unit designed and 79 constructed to meet the Manufactured Home Consturction and Safety Standards of the U.S. 80 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code, and that has also been placed upon 81 a permanent, unmovable foundation. 82 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 2; Code 1981, § 12-1; Ord. of 11-10-1986, § 1) 83 Sec. 66-2. - Licenses. 84 (a) Required fee. The owner of a mobile home or manufactured home that is not to be permanently 85 placed shall obtain an annual license for it and shall pay a fee for such license as provided for in 86 Appendix F-Fees and Fines. 87 (b) Payment; penalties. Such license shall be obtained and the license fee paid by July August 1 of each 88 year and if such fee is not paid before August September 1 of such year, then, in addition to any 89 penalty incurred pursuant to Appendix F-Fees and Fines, a penalty fee of ten percent per month shall 90 accrue on the unpaid balance of the license fee. 91 (c) Moving into city. Upon the moving of a mobile home manufactured home into the city, such if the 92 manufactured home requires a license it shall be obtained and the license fee paid within seven 93 days. Payment of such license fee shall be prorated on a quarterly basis for each fractional part of a 94 year during which the mobile home manufactured home is in the city. 95 (d) Sticker; where placed. Once the annual license fee has been paid by the owner of a mobile 96 home, he shall be issued a sticker or other evidence of payment by the city manager or his 97 authorized agent. This sticker or other evidence of payment must be placed upon the mobile 98 home on the front of the mobile home facing the street on the righthand side when facing said 99 mobile home one foot up from the bottom of the skirting and one foot over from the side of the 100 mobile home. 101 (d) Required fee for landowners. The owner of any land leased out as part of a land lease 102 community shall obtain an annual land lease community operator business license under the 103 provisions of Chapter 26 - Businesses. 104 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 2; Ord. of 5-24-1976; Ord. of 3-27-1980; Code 1981, § 12-2; Ord. of 8-8-1988; Ord. 105 of 3-22-1993; Ord. No. 2009-09, 6-22-2009)

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 4 106 Sec. 66-3. - Real property taxes. 107 A permanently placed mobile home manufactured home as defined in section 66-1, and the lot 108 upon which it is located shall be considered as being real property for purposes of valuation, assessment and 109 taxation in accordance with section 47 of the Charter, but shall be considered a mobile home as defined 110 in section 66-1 for purposes of zoning and shall only be permitted to be located in the mobile home 111 park zone (MPH), as spelled out in appendix B to this Code (article 3, section 8). This section shall not 112 apply to permanently placed mobile homes that were in place on January 1, 1985, which shall 113 continue to be licensed in accordance with section 66-2. 114 (Code 1981, § 12-2.1; Ord. of 11-10-1986, § 2) 115 Sec. 66-4. - Placement permit. 116 Every owner of a mobile home manufactured home, before moving the same into the city, shall 117 apply for and obtain from the city manager planner or his/her authorized agent a placement permit for such 118 mobile home manufactured home. The city manager planner or his/her authorized agent shall issue no 119 placement permit until the license fee required in this chapter is paid in full. 120 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, §§ 3, 6; Ord. of 5-24-1976; Code 1981, § 12-3) 121 Sec. 66-5. - Duties of mobile home park land lease community owners and operators. 122 (a) Documents to mobile home owners. Copies of this chapter and placement permit application 123 forms shall be furnished to each mobile home park operator, who shall give a copy of the same 124 to every mobile home owner who moves a mobile home into his park, before the 15th day of 125 the next succeeding month after placement of the mobile home. 126 (b) Lease record; report. Mobile home park operators who lease land to two or more persons for 127 parking mobile homes shall maintain a lease record, which shall be open for inspection at all 128 reasonable times by the city manager. Before June 1 of each year, the mobile home park 129 operator shall report to the city manager the names and addresses of all persons having mobile 130 homes on his land. 131 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, §§ 4, 5, 7; Code 1981, § 12-4) 132 (a) The following regulations shall apply to owners and operators of all land lease communities: 133 i. Private road access. It shall be the responsibility of land lease community owners and 134 operators to maintain all private streets, driveway access to such streets, access to fire 135 hydrants, and access to central mailboxes so as to be clear from obstructions, including but 136 not limited to potholes, snow piles, and debris. 137 ii. Debris clearance. It shall be the responsibility of land lease community owners and 138 operators to ensure that all facilities and common areas within the community are kept in 139 good repair and maintained in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of materials 140 which could cause a fire hazard or would cause insect or rodent breeding and harborage.

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 5 141 iii. Landscaping. All trees, shrubbery, lawns, and other landscaping features within the 142 community shall be maintained by the land lease community operator to be in healthy 143 condition at all times. 144 iv. Utilities. All water, sewer, electric, and gas lines and connections intended to serve common 145 areas or the private property of tenants within the community shall be kept in good repair 146 at all times by the land lease community operator. Stormwater management facilities shall 147 be maintained so as to be free of blockage and to prevent the accumulation of standing 148 water. Community owners shall coordinate with the City of Dover regarding utility 149 services and equipment. 150 v. Office hours. The land lease community operator shall be present on site at a minimum 151 during regular business hours, so as to facilitate communication between tenants of the 152 community and the owner, and a 24-hour emergency contact shall be available to residents. 153 vi. Receipt for lot payment. The Land Lease community operator shall provide a written 154 receipt or electronic receipt at the time rent payment has been made, regardless of the form 155 of payment. 156 (b) The following regulations shall additionally apply to owners and operators of land lease 157 communities leasing land to manufactured homes: 158 i. Documents to manufactured home owners. Copies of this chapter and placement permit 159 application forms shall be furnished to each land lease community owner, who shall give 160 a copy of the same to every manufactured home owner who moves a manufactured home 161 into the community, before the 15th day of the next succeeding month after placement of 162 the manufactured home. 163 ii. Enforcement. It shall be the responsibility of land lease community owners and operators 164 to ensure that all mobile homes and manufactured homes placed on their land maintain 165 a current license under Section 66-2. 166 iii. Lease record; report. Land lease community owners who lease land to two or more 167 persons for siting manufactured homes shall maintain a lease record, which shall be open 168 for inspection at all reasonable times by the city planner. Before June 1 of each year, the 169 land lease community owner shall report to the city planner the names and addresses of 170 all persons having manufactured homes on his land. 171 iv. Sale of home. Before a home is sold by the homeowner, home owner’s estate, foreclosure, 172 eviction or other means, the City of Dover must be notified and all delinquent taxes, fees, 173 or other charges must be paid. 174 v. The land lease community owner must notify the City of Dover if the community is placed 175 for sale.

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 6 176 (c) The following shall be considered appropriate methods of redress if the duties outlined in this 177 section are not fulfilled: 178 i. Any land lease community owner found to be in violation of the provisions of this section, 179 regardless of corrective actions taken, shall be assessed a fine as provided for in Appendix 180 F- Fees and Fines. Any such fine shall be in addition to any charges imposed upon the 181 violator in accordance with subsection (c)(ii) below. 182 ii. If required, the City of Dover may perform maintenance in the owner's stead following 183 official notice, and place a lien on the property to recover costs, including a 15% 184 administrative charge. 185 iii. Repeated failure to perform the required duties shall be cause to take action upon an 186 owner's land lease community operator license in accordance with the provisions of 187 Chapter 26 - Businesses, Article II, Section 26-59. 188 Sec. 66-6. - Anchoring and skirting. 189 Within 30 days after Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for of all mobile homes, 190 the mobile homes any manufactured home not placed on a permanent foundation, the manufactured 191 home shall be firmly anchored to the ground and the open space beneath the unit shall be skirted with 192 approved material in accordance with the requirements of the building inspector. 193 (Ord. of 9-13-1976; Code 1981, § 12-5) 194 Sec. 66-7. - Use of city utilities. 195 The owner or occupant of any mobile home or manufactured home shall not be entitled to receive 196 city utilities until the license fee required in this chapter is paid in full, and city personnel shall refuse to 197 provide sewage, water and electricity to the mobile home or manufactured home until satisfactory proof 198 is furnished that such license fee has been paid. 199 (Ord. of 7-28-1975; Code 1981, § 12-6) 200 Sec. 66-8. - Exemptions. 201 This chapter shall not apply to: 202 (1) Dealers. Unoccupied mobile home manufactured homes located on a dealer's display lot; or 203 (2) State license tag Manufactured homes in transit. Mobile homes bearing a current license tag 204 of this state Unoccupied manufactured homes temporarily occupying the public right-of-way prior 205 to placement on a lot or home site. 206 (Ord. of 2-23-1970, § 8; Code 1981, § 12-7)

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 7 207 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 208 That Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article III - Realty Transfer Tax, Section 102-71 - Definitions, (a)(1)s of the 209 Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as 210 follows: 211 s. Any conveyance of a "mobile home," or “manufactured home” as defined in 25 Del. C. § 7003; 212 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 213 That Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing and Parking, Division 1 - 214 Generally, Section 106-123 - Vehicle Parking Time Limited Where Carrying Capacity Is in Excess of One 215 Ton and Section 106-128 - Parking Mobile Homes, etc. of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text 216 indicated in red strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 217 Sec. 106-123. - Vehicle parking time limited where carrying capacity is in excess of one ton, and trailer 218 and motor home recreational vehicle parking. 219 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle with a carrying capacity of more than one ton, 220 any trailer, which includes, but is not limited to, boat, utility, construction or one that is used to carry 221 goods regardless of weight capacity and is designed to be towed or pulled by another vehicle, or any 222 vehicle or trailer on the city streets for a period longer than two consecutive hours. 223 (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to park any commercial vehicle with a carrying capacity of more 224 than one ton, any trailer, which includes, but is not limited to, utility, construction or one that is used 225 to carry goods regardless of weight capacity and is designed to be towed or pulled by another vehicle, 226 or any vehicle or trailer combination thereof, or any travel trailer in any residential zone in the city 227 except for temporary parking for immediate deliveries, pickups, and/or service calls to residences 228 or for construction work on residential properties. A commercial vehicle shall be one which is used 229 or maintained for the transportation of persons or property for hire, compensation or profit, except 230 taxicabs. 231 (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to park a trailered boat under 25 feet on the streets of Dover for 232 a period longer than 12 consecutive hours. For any trailered boat 25 or greater, refer to subsection 233 (a). 234 (d) It shall be unlawful for any motor home recreational vehicle to park on any residential street for 235 a period longer than 12 consecutive hours without a permit. A resident owner of a motor home 236 recreational vehicle may request a parking permit from the city to park on a residential street in the 237 vicinity of their residence for a period not to exceed 72 hours. The permit would be made available 238 at no cost to the resident. The parking permit shall be displayed in the front window of the vehicle 239 visible from the street. A resident may only request such a permit three times in any 12-month 240 period. 241 (e) Nonresidents are exempt from subsection (d) for a period of up to seven days as long as their motor 242 home or travel trailer recreational vehicle does not create a safety hazard or interfere with traffic 243 in the residential area that they are parked in.

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 8 244 (f) All parking allowed in this section only applies to streets that can accommodate parking in 245 compliance with appendix A, article VI, section A. 246 (Code 1981, § 13-30.2; Ord. of 2-22-1982; Ord. of 9-10-1990; Ord. of 12-11-1995; Ord. of 7-25-2005) 247 Sec. 106-128. - Parking mobile homes Occupancy of recreational vehicles, etc. 248 It shall be unlawful and a nuisance to keep, either as owner, tenant or possessor, any mobile home 249 recreational vehicle, bus, motor vehicle, portable structure or vehicle of any kind designed or adapted 250 for long-term occupancy, except while it is being used as a business office in connection with the 251 construction of a permanent building or structure on the same premises. The person desiring to park and use 252 the vehicle or structure as a construction business office shall first obtain a permit therefor from the city 253 manager, and the permit shall be effective for no more than six months, but in no event for longer than the 254 period of construction. 255 (Code 1968, § 17-62; Code 1981, § 13-35) 256 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 257 That Chapter 110 - Utilities, Article III - Water Service, Division 3 - Water Impact Fees, Section 110-207 - 258 Establishment of Equivalent Dwelling Units, (a)(1) of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text 259 indicated in red strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 260 (a) Determination for residential dwellings. Whenever by ordinance or by contract the city imposes or 261 assesses water charges or fees on the basis of EDUs, an EDU shall be determined in the same 262 manner as wastewater collection charges or fees and as defined in the most recent impact fee 263 ordinance adopted by Kent County Levy Court. An EDU for a residential dwelling shall be 264 determined as follows: 265 (1) Houses, dwellings, mobile homes, manufactured homes, and apartments with one kitchen and 266 one or more baths and bedrooms separate from the kitchen .....1.0 EDU 267 (2) Efficiency unit or cottage having a living space in one room and having one bath .....1.0 EDU 268 (3) Dwelling with one kitchen and one or more baths and bedrooms separate from the kitchen and 269 attached to other dwellings or structures .....1.0 EDU 270 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 271 That Chapter 110 - Utilities, Article IV - Sanitary Sewer Service, Division 3 - Wastewater Collection Impact 272 Fees, Section 110-282 - Establishment of Equivalent Dwelling Units, (a)(1) of the Dover Code be amended 273 by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 274 (a) Determination for residential dwellings. Whenever by ordinance or by contract the city imposes or 275 assesses wastewater collection and transmission charges or fees on the basis of EDUs, an EDU shall 276 be determined as defined in the most recent impact fee ordinance adopted by the Levy Court of the 277 county. An EDU for a residential dwelling shall be determined as follows:

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 9 278 (1) Houses, dwellings, mobile homes, manufactured homes, and apartments with one kitchen and 279 one or more baths and bedrooms separate from the kitchen .....1.0 EDU 280 (2) Efficiency unit or cottage having a living space in one room and having one bath .....1.0 EDU 281 (3) Dwelling with one kitchen and one or more baths and bedrooms separate from the kitchen and 282 attached to other dwellings or structures .....1.0 EDU 283 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 284 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 2 - Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, Section 1 - List of Zones of the 285 Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text in 286 the correct alphabetical order, as follows: 287 Manufactured housing zone .....MH 288 Mobile home park zone .....MHP 289 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 290 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 8 - Mobile Home Park Zone (MHP) of 291 the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, 292 as follows: 293 Section 8. - Mobile home park zone (MHP) Manufactured Housing Zone (MH). 294 8.1 Uses permitted. In a manufactured housing zone, No no building or premises shall be used, and 295 no building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any 296 purpose, except as a mobile home park for the leasing of mobile home stands for mobile homes 297 designed for single-family occupancy, provided that for any uses, except the following: 298 8.11 The minimum number of mobile home stands completed and ready for occupancy 299 before the first mobile home is permitted on the premises for residential use is 35 300 mobile home stands. Manufactured homes on individual lots, held in any type of 301 ownership. 302 8.12 No mobile home stand shall be leased or occupied for residential use of a mobile home, 303 except for periods of 30 consecutive days or more. Multiple manufactured homes on 304 a lot, provided that: 305 (a) The lot is operated as a condominium; or 306 (b) The lot is operated as a land lease community; and 307 (c) There are at least 15 manufactured homes on the lot, or else sufficient home sites 308 for rent or sale on the lot to accommodate 15 manufactured homes. Such home sites 309 need not be expressly delineated but must be improved so as to be complete and 310 ready for occupancy by a manufactured home.

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 10 311 8.13 No mobile home shall be permitted in any mobile home park unless it can be 312 demonstrated that the mobile home meets the requirements of the United States of America 313 Standards Institute publication "Standard for Mobile Homes, Body and Frame Design and 314 Construction Requirements and the Installation of Plumbing, Heating and Electrical 315 Systems," USA Standard A119, 1-1969. One-family detached homes on individual lots, held 316 in any type of ownership. 317 8.14 The entire land area occupied by a mobile home park shall be maintained in single 318 ownership throughout the entire life of the mobile home park or in multiple ownership under 319 the provisions of the laws of the State of Delaware dealing with unit properties and 320 condominiums, subject to the following requirements: 321 (a) Multiple ownership shall not be permitted in existing parks previously in single 322 ownership; 323 (b) Multiple ownership shall be permitted only in new established parks where application 324 is made for multiple ownership at the time the application to establish the mobile home 325 park is presented to the planning commission. 326 8.15 A permanent standard residence for not more than one family shall be permitted, 327 incidental to each mobile home park, for the use of the owner, manager or caretaker of the 328 mobile home park. 329 8.16 A permanent management office facility shall be permitted, which may include only the 330 following: 331 (a) A management office with rooms for the usual office furniture and supplies; 332 (b) Storage space for utility connection supplies in quantity, mobile home accessories and 333 maintenance materials and equipment; 334 (c) Laundry facilities equipped with washing machines and dryers; 335 (d) Community building facilities, including indoor recreation areas; 336 (e) One beauty shop and/or one barbershop in each mobile home park complex. 337 8.17 Maintenance of private streets. In mobile home parks with private streets, such streets, 338 driveway access to such streets, access to fire hydrants, and access to central mailboxes shall 339 be maintained by the mobile home park so as to be clear of obstructions including, but not 340 limited to, potholes, snow piles, and debris. 341 8.18 Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign 342 regulations.

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 11 343 8.2 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 344 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection 345 of any buildings and mobile home stands and related accessory structures. After initial site 346 development plan approval, reapproval shall not be required prior to the issuance of building 347 permits for the alterations to individual mobile home stands or accessory buildings such as 348 storage areas and patios, which, in the judgment of the city planner, do not materially alter 349 the site development plan approval by the planning commission and are requested as 350 adjustments to the mobile home lot leased by an individual family and designed for the 351 convenience and comfort of the individual lessee. Conditional uses. Conditional uses shall be 352 consistent with those conditionally permitted in the One-Family Residence Zones. 353 8.21 For purposes of preparing a site development plan for approval by the planning 354 commission, and all subsequent improvements, alterations or additions, the applicant shall 355 conform to current submission requirements and site development standards as set forth by 356 the National Fire Protection Association publication 501A, "Standards for Mobile Home 357 Parks." Where applicable, the approving authority shall be the Dover Planning Commission. 358 8.3 Maximum density. The gross residential density in an MHP zone shall not exceed six dwelling 359 units per acre. Accessory uses. Accessory uses shall be consistent with those permitted in the 360 One-Family Residence Zones, with the following additions and exceptions: 361 8.31 Management facilities. The following shall be permitted accessory to lots providing 362 home sites for multiple manufactured homes: 363 (a) Management offices with rooms for the usual office furniture and supplies, limited 364 to one per lot; 365 (b) Storage space for utility connection supplies in quantity, manufactured home 366 accessories and maintenance materials and equipment; 367 (c) Laundry facilities equipped with washing machines and dryers; 368 (d) Community building facilities, including indoor recreation areas; 369 (e) Commercial establishments consistent with uses permitted in the C-1 Neighborhood 370 Commercial Zone, limited to one such establishment per lot; 371 (f) One-family detached homes intended for the use of a manager or caretaker, limited 372 to one such dwelling per lot. 373 8.32 Accessory home occupations. Accessory home occupations shall be permitted consistent 374 with the conditions outlined for home occupations in the One-Family Residence Zones, 375 with the exception that no home occupation shall be permitted if not also permitted by 376 the owner of the lot on which the home is sited.

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 12 377 8.4 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 378 8.41 Mobile homes, house trailers, and recreational vehicles as principal uses on a lot. Any 379 such structures or vehicles located within the zone and being used as dwellings shall 380 upon the effective date of this ordinance be deemed non-conforming uses in accordance 381 with article 7. 382 8.42 Any other kind of factory-built housing that does not meet the Manufactured Home 383 Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 384 Development (HUD) Code as approved June 15, 1976, unless it can be demonstrated 385 that such housing is constructed to the standards of the Dover Code of Ordinances, 386 Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations. Any such housing located within the 387 zone and being used as dwellings shall upon the effective date of this ordinance be 388 deemed non-conforming uses in accordance with article 7. 389 8.5 Minimum occupation length. No lot or home site within the Manufactured Housing Zone 390 reserved for occupation by a manufactured home shall be leased or occupied for residential 391 use except for periods of 30 consecutive days or more. 392 8.6 Land Lease Communities. The following regulations shall apply to land lease communities 393 within the MH zone: 394 8.61 The entire land area occupied by a land lease community, regardless of the number of 395 home sites or individual lots therein, shall be maintained in single ownership, or if in 396 multiple ownership, under the provisions of the laws of the State of Delaware dealing 397 with unit properties and condominiums. 398 8.62 Changes to site plan. After initial site development plan approval of a land lease 399 community, reapproval for the entire community shall not be required prior to the 400 issuance of building permits for alterations to individual manufactured homes, or their 401 accessory buildings such as storage areas and patios, which, in the judgement of the city 402 planner, do not materially alter the site development plan approval by the planning 403 commission and are requested as adjustments to the individual manufactured home 404 sites or lots leased by an individual family and designed for the convenience and 405 comfort of the individual lessee. 406 8.7 Performance Standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, 407 section 8. 408 8.8 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, 409 section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or 410 enlargement of all structures and related accessory structures. Such approval shall also be 411 required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a change of use. 412 8.81 For purposes of preparing a site development plan for approval by the planning 413 commission, and all subsequent improvements, alterations or additions, the applicant 414 shall conform to current submission requirements and site development standards as 415 set forth by the National Fire Protection Association publication 501A,"Standard for

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 13 416 Fire Safety Criteria for Manufactured Home Installations, Sites, and Communities." 417 Where applicable, the approving authority shall be the Dover Planning Commission 418 Fire Marshal’s Office. 419 8.82 No site development plan proposing the siting of a manufactured home outside of a 420 land lease community shall be approved unless the plan shows the manufactured home 421 is to be permanently placed, as defined in the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66 422 - Manufactured Homes, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities. 423 8.9 Maximum density. The gross residential density in an MH zone shall not exceed six dwelling 424 units per acre. 425 8.10 Signs. Signs shall meet the regulations found in Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, 426 Section 4 - Supplementary Sign Regulations. 427 (Ord. of 10-13-1981; Ord. of 3-20-1983; Ord. of 3-24-1986; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. of 428 4-28-2008(2); Ord. No. 2010-29, 1-10-2011) 429 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 430 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 22 - Airport Environs Overlay Zone 431 (AEOZ), Subsection 22.6 - Land Use Compatibility Table - Residential of the Dover Code be amended by 432 inserting the bold, blue text in the correct alphabetical order, as follows: 433 Manufactured homes N N N N N N N 434 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 435 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 24 - Planned Neighborhood Design 436 Option [(PND)], Subsection 24.3 - Permitted Uses of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text 437 indicated in red strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 438 24.3 Permitted uses: 439 (a) Any use permitted in one-family residence zones; 440 (b) Any other residential use, including one-family lot line dwelling units, duplexes, multiplexes, 441 townhouses, patio houses, garden apartments, [and] mid-rise apartments, but not including high-rise 442 apartments, and mobile homes;, or manufactured homes; 443 (c) Accessory dwelling units may be proposed in conjunction with detached single-family houses if 444 approved by the planning commission as an integral part of planned neighborhood design; 445 (d) Commercial uses accessory to the development as a whole in accordance with the standards of the 446 C-1A zone; 447 (e) Under the senior citizen housing option, all housing types, and including congregate housing 448 structures and uses, assisted living residences, and nursing homes. All such housing units and/or 449 property shall be deed restricted to require that the head of household for each housing unit be at

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 14 450 least 55 years of age or older. 451 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 452 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.12 - Mobile Home 453 Park (MHP) Zone of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting 454 the bold, blue text, as follows: 455 Section 4.12. - Mobile home park (MHP) Manufactured Housing (MH) zone. 456 [(a)] Bulk and parking regulations for the mobile home park (MHP) manufactured housing (MH) zone 457 [are as follows]: Mobile Home Park Individual Individual All Other Manufactured Home Single-Wide Double-Wide Individual Unit Community ($ 15 Unit Lots Unit Lots Lots home sites per lot) 458 Minimum required: 459 Lot area 15 acres 4,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 460 Lot width (ft.) 200 40 55 60 461 Front yard (ft.) 40 25 25 25 462 Side yard (ft.) 25 8 8 8 463 Rear yard (ft.) 25 11 11 11 464 Off-street parking space 2 2 2 2 (a) Per mobile home home/home site 2 2 2 2 Per 300 sq. ft. of floor area in permanent (b) 1 management office facility 465 Maximum permitted: Building height of permanent management office facility Stories 2 2 2 2 Feet 30 30 30 30 466 [(b)] Special requirements for corner lots with frontage on two internal streets, public or private, 467 within a mobile home park shall be as follows: 468 1. Minimum lot width for a single-wide unit lot shall be 54 feet, and minimum lot width for a 469 double-wide unit lot shall be 68 feet, and minimum lot width for any other individual unit 470 lot shall be 75 feet. 471 2. The minimum setback for any structure from the edge of the cartway of either street shall be 472 22 feet. 473 3. Off-street parking shall not be permitted within 30 feet of the corner of the lot at the street 474 intersection. 475 [(c)] Special requirements for cul-de-sac streets within a mobile home park lots accessed by cul de 476 sac streets shall be as follows: 477 1. The minimum lot frontage at the edge of the street cartway shall be 16 feet. 478 2. The minimum lot width at the building setback and for the full depth of the lot behind the

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 15 479 building setback line shall be 40 feet for a single-wide unit lot area and 55 feet for a 480 double-wide unit lot. (Ord. of 4-28-1986) 481 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 482 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 4 - Supplementary Sign 483 Regulations, Subsection 4.7 - Permitted Signs of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text 484 indicated in red strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 485 4.7 Permitted signs. Signs are permitted in all zones in accordance with the following table, which is 486 a list of permitted sign types by use, proximity to residential uses and road classification. 487 SIGN TABLE 488 Use Permitted Signs Road Percentage Setback Number Max. Max. Exclusio 489 Specific Type Sign Type of Total (R.O.W. Permitted Size Height n Zone Wall Area ) Single-Family Detached/ All Signs permitted in § 4.5 only Semi-Detached Streets Post or 12 1/entrance 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet All Monument S.F. 490 Residential Professional Office Streets 16 491 Uses and Wall 1/frontage N/A # 15% N/A N/A S.F. 492 Nonresidentia Subdivisions 493 l Uses in Multi-Family 32 494 Residential Wall 1/frontage N/A # 15% N/A N/A Residential Uses S.F. 495 Districts All Streets Monument Manufactured Home 32 Parks Housing or Post and 2/entrance 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet S.F. Communities Panel 32 Wall 2/frontage N/A # 15% N/A N/A S.F. Monument 32 Urban or Post and 1/entrance 7 feet N/A 10 feet 20 feet S.F. Principal Panel OR Places of Worship Arterial Post** 1/frontage 16 7 feet N/A 5 feet 5 feet 496 Nonresidentia S.F. Daycare Centers 497 l Uses 32 Approved Conditional Uses Pylon* 1/frontage 30 feet N/A 30 feet 50 feet 498 Adjacent to S.F. Educational/Institution 499 Residential 32 al Wall 2/frontage N/A # 15% N/A N/A 500 Districts or S.F. All Other Approved Urban Monument 501 Uses Nonresidential Uses Minor or Post and 1/entrance 32 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet S.F. Arterial Panel OR 16 Post** 1/frontage 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet S.F. UrbanLocal/ 32 Wall 2/frontage N/A # 15% N/A N/A Collector S.F.

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 16 Monument 32 or Post and 1/entrance 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet S.F. Panel OR 16 Post** 1/frontage 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet S.F. No Wall 2/frontage N/A # 15% N/A N/A max Monument 100 Urban or Post and 1/entrance 10 feet N/A 10 feet 20 feet S.F. Principal Panel Arterial Pylon OR 100 1/frontage 30 feet N/A 15 feet 50 feet * S.F. 150 Pylon* 1/frontage 30 feet N/A 31 feet 50 feet S.F. 64 502 Nonresidentia Wall 2/frontage N/A #15% NA N/A S.F. 503 l Uses in Nonresidential Uses Urban Monument 504 Nonresidentia 64 Minor or Post and 1/entrance 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet 505 l Districts S.F. Arterial Panel OR 16 Post** 1/frontage 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet S.F. 32 Wall 2/frontage N/A # 15% N/A N/A S.F. Monument UrbanLocal/ 32 or Post and 1/entrance 7 feet N/A 5 feet 20 feet Collector S.F. Panel OR 16 Post** 1/frontage 7 feet N/A 5 feet 10 feet S.F. 506 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 507 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 6 - Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 1 - 508 Permitted Accessory Parking of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout 509 and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 510 Section 1. - Permitted accessory parking. 511 1.1 [Off-street parking spaces.] Off-street parking spaces, open or enclosed, are permitted accessory to 512 any use. One commercial vehicle may be parked on a lot in any residence zone only if less than one 513 ton in carrying capacity. 514 1.12 [1.2] Trailers and boats. The storage or parking and use of a house trailer long-term use of a 515 recreational vehicle as a residence by any person or persons is prohibited in all residential 516 zones, except the mobile home park (MHP) zone. A boat with its trailer, or a utility trailer, 517 and an unoccupied travel trailer under 31 feet body length or an unoccupied motor home 518 recreational vehicle, may be parked within a garage or anywhere behind the setback line if

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 17 519 screened from adjacent lots. However, none of the vehicles shall be parked in a required side 520 yard if alley parking adjacent to the lot is available. 521 1.13 [1.3] Driveways. No driveway shall provide access to a lot located in another zone, which lot is used 522 for any use prohibited in the zone in which such driveway is located. 523 1.14 [1.4] The minimum width of a residential driveway shall be nine feet. 524 (Ord. of 9-12-1983; Ord. of 1-10-1996; Ord. of 11-13-2007) 525 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 526 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 7 - Nonconforming Buildings and Uses, Section 1 - Nonconforming 527 Buildings and Uses, Subsection 1.51 of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red 528 strikeout and inserting the bold, blue text, as follows: 529 1.5 Each of the nonconforming uses specified below is deemed sufficiently objectionable, undesirable, 530 and out of character in the district in which such use is located as to depreciate the value of other property 531 and uses permitted in the district, and blight the proper and orderly development and general welfare of such 532 district and the city to the point that each of such nonconforming uses shall be terminated on or before the 533 expiration of the specified period of time after the effective date of this ordinance; which period of time is 534 specified for the purpose of permitting the amortization of the remaining value, if any, of such use. 535 1.51 In any residence zone, any nonconforming use of open land, including such uses as a parking 536 lot, junkyard, or open storage yard for materials or equipment, may be continued for three years after 537 the effective date of this ordinance, or after annexation of the property into the City of Dover, 538 provided that, after the expiration of that period, such nonconforming use shall be terminated (see 539 also article 6, section 1.12). Any "house trailer," “mobile home” as that term is defined in article 540 12 hereof, that was located within the limits of the City of Dover at the effective date of this 541 ordinance [November 22, 1976], or that was in place on any land subsequently annexed into the City 542 of Dover, in any zone other than the mobile home park zone (MHP), shall constitute a 543 nonconforming use and shall be permitted to be maintained as a nonconforming use indefinitely. 544 However, such house trailer mobile home shall be required to connect to city sewer and water 545 mains, if available, and such house trailer mobile home shall be subject to and shall comply with 546 all other city codes and ordinances applicable to structures and residences. 547 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 548 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 12 - Definitions of the Dover Code be amended by inserting the 549 following new definitions, indicated in bold, blue text, in the correct alphabetical order:

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 18 550 Condominium: A form of property ownership providing for individual ownership of a 551 dwelling unit together with an individual interest in land or parts of a building held in common with 552 other owners. Condominiums follow the provisions of the laws of the State of Delaware dealing with 553 unit properties and condominiums. 554 Land Lease Community: A residential development typified by single ownership of the land 555 within the development, with the landowner retaining the rights of ownership. Home sites or 556 individual lots within the community are leased to individual homeowners, who retain customary 557 leasehold rights. 558 Mobile home: A factory-built housing unit constructed on a chassis and completed before June 559 15, 1976. Prior to the HUD code, mobile homes were not subject to uniform construction or safety 560 standards. 561 Modular Home: A factory built housing unit constructed to the standards of the Dover Code 562 of Ordinances, Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations. 563 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 564 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 12 - Definitions of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the 565 definitions indicated in red strikeout, as follows: 566 Mobile home: A single-family dwelling designed for transportation, after fabrication, on 567 streets, and highways on its own wheels or on flatbed or other trailers, and arriving at a site in a 568 mobile home park where it is to be occupied as a dwelling, complete and ready for occupancy, except 569 for minor and incidental unpacking and assembly operations, location on jacks or permanent 570 foundations, connections to utilities, and the like; excluding, however, the single-family dwelling 571 which is designed to be readily moveable after the original occupancy as a single-family dwelling, and 572 conforms to the building code, plumbing code, electrical code and housing code of the City of Dover. 573 Single-wide mobile homes are those units built as a complete home measuring up to 14 feet in width 574 and finished on all exterior sides prior to transportation to a site for installation. Double-wide mobile 575 homes are those units built in two halves intended to be assembled together on the site at the time of 576 installation, each half measuring up to 14 feet in width and each finished on three exterior sides. 577 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 578 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 12 - Definitions of the Dover Code be amended by inserting the text 579 indicated in bold, blue text and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout, for the following definitions: 580 Dwelling unit: A building or entirely self-contained portion thereof containing complete 581 housekeeping facilities for only one family, including any domestic servants employed on the premises, and 582 having no enclosed space (other than vestibules, entrance or other hallways or porches) or cooking or 583 sanitary facilities in common with any other dwelling unit. A boarding[house] or roominghouse,

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 19 584 convalescent home, dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, hotel, inn, lodging, nursing, or other similar 585 home, house trailer, travel trailer, recreational vehicle, or other similar structures or vehicles shall not 586 be deemed to constitute a dwelling unit. 587 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 588 That Appendix F - Fees and Fines, Chapter 26 - Businesses, Article II - Licenses, Section 26-35 - License 589 Required; Fees, Subsection (d)(1) - Businesses Licensed of the Dover Code be amended by inserting the 590 bold, blue text and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout, as follows: Fees and Fines 591 Chapter 26 - Businesses, Article II - Licenses 592 Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the fine was issued, 593 shall be automatically doubled in amount. 594 Sec. 26-35 - License required; fees Subsec. (d)(1) - Businesses licensed Advertising agency $95.00 Amusement operator $157.00 Architect $250.00 Attorney-at-law $313.00 ATM machines (third-party or off bank premises) $50.50 Auctioneer $157.00 Automobile race operator $375.00 Bank, or loan and trust company $313.00 Barber $63.00 each additional chair over two $4.00 Beautician $63.00 each additional chair over two $4.00 Broadcasting station $313.00 Broker $157.00 Car wash $188.00 Certified public accountant $250.00 Cesspool cleaner $125.00 Chiropractor $313.00 Clinical social worker $96.00 $3.00 Coin-operated amusement machine owner Per machine Coin-operated vending machine owner $3.00

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 20 Per machine $125.00 Coin-operated electronic video machine Per machine Commercial sign business $125.00 Computer-related services $125.00 Consultant $50.50 Day care operator: Center or home provider with greater than six children $50.50 Dentist $313.00 Distributor $63.00 Dray person or mover $125.00 Eating establishment and/or eating establishment operator $125.00 Employment agency $125.00 Entertainer: One - three entertainers per group $50.50 Four - nine entertainers per group $95.00 Ten or more $125.00 Entertainment agent $188.00 Finance or small loan agency $250.00 Fitness trainer $69.00 Funeral director $250.00 Gaming position $155.00 Gas, light, power, cable TV and telephone company $938.00 General repairman $63.00 Health spa or health club $188.00 Home day care operator $25.50 Hotel: Per room $9.50 Per suite $12.50 Income tax consultant $188.00 Incorporator $125.00 Insurance adjustor office $125.00 Itinerant merchant, per event $100.00 Janitorial and cleaning service: One - three employees $50.50 Four - nine employees $95.00 Ten or more employees $125.00

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 21 Land lease community operator, per home site within $25.00 community Landscape service company: One - three employees $50.50 Four - nine employees $95.00 Ten or more employees $125.00 Laundry service operator: Primary facility $125.00 Additional drop-off locations $50.50 Linen supplier $125.00 Manicurist $32.00 Manufacturer's agent or representative $125.00 Mercantile agency or collection agency $125.00 Mobile home park, per space $7.00 Motel, per room $7.00 Motion picture theater $188.00 Motor vehicle serviceman $95.00 Nursing, rest or convalescent home $188.00 Open market operator: First 20 spaces, per rented space $22.50 21st - 50th space, per rented space $11.50 Each space over 50, per rented space $6.00 Outdoor tables, per table $6.00 Optometrist $313.00 Pawnbroker $188.00 Pest control services $95.00 Pharmacist $188.00 Photographer $125.00 Physical therapist $188.00 Physician and/or surgeon $313.00 Plant nursery and florist $95.00 Podiatrist $313.00 $63.00/ Pool table operator, per table Maximum fee $189.00 Printer $125.00 Private investigator agency $188.00

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 22 Professional counselor $63.00 Professional engineer $250.00 Professional land surveyor $250.00 Psychologist $313.00 Public accountant $188.00 Public stenographer $38.00 Publisher $313.00 Real estate broker, appraiser, and manager $157.00 Real estate development corporation $344.00 Real estate property manager: One - three units managed $50.50 Four - ten units managed $125.00 Ten + units managed $125.00 Real estate salesperson or associated broker $50.50 Rental service $125.00 Sales representative $50.50 School and educational service (nonvocational) $63.00 School and educational service (vocational) $125.00 Scientific laboratory $250.00 Scrap and waste material service $125.00 Secondhand dealer of precious metals $125.00 Security service $188.00 Self-service laundry or dry cleaner $125.00 Shoe repairman $50.50 Sound truck, per hour $33.00 Tailor and garment service $50.50 Taxicab or bus operator: First vehicle $26.00 Each additional vehicle $26.00 Tourist home, per room $7.00 Trailer park, per space $7.00 Travel agency $125.00 Veterinarian $313.00 Warehouseman $250.00 Wholesale news agency $63.00 All other businesses not listed: One - three employees $50.50

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 23 Four - nine employees $95.00 Ten - 50 employees $125.00 51 - 100 employees $313.00 595 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 596 That Appendix F - Fees and Fines, Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes and Trailers of the Dover Code be 597 amended by inserting the bold, blue text and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout, as follows: Fees and Fines 598 Chapter 66 - Manufactured Homes and Trailers, Mobile Homes, and Land Lease Communities 599 Sec. 66-2 - Licenses Subsec. (a) - Required fee $45.00 each license A fine of not less than $50.00 $25.00, nor more than $1,000.00 and a penalty fee of Subsec. (b) - Payment; penalties ten percent per month shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the license fee 600 Sec. 66-5 - Duties of Land Lease Community Owners and Operators A fine of not less than $ 5 0 .0 0 i n addition to any Subsec. (c)(i) - Failure to perform required duties charges imposed to cover cost of maintenance by the City $75.00 per hour for such work that must be done to render the property in Subsec. 66-5 (c)(ii) - Cost of maintenance by the City compliance with this article, plus a 15% administrative charge 601 ADOPTED: * 602 S:\ORDINANCES\2016\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2016-16 MANUFACTURED HOUSING\Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Housing w SA#1-Final Reading.wpd 603 SYNOPSIS

Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 - Manufactured Homes Page 24 604 The proposed ordinance updates the standards and terminology throughout the Dover Code as they relate 605 to manufactured homes. The proposed ordinance also implements standards for management and 606 maintenance of land lease communities. (SPONSORS: NEIL, SLAVIN, AND COLE) 607 Actions History 608 08/08/2016 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 609 07/18/2016 - Public Hearing - Planning Commission 610 06/27/2016 - First Reading - City Council 611 06/14/2016 - Introduction - Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee

DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION The Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) meeting was held on July 20, 2016 at 6:07 p.m. with Chairman Henderson presiding. Members present were Mr. McGiffin and Mrs. Sadusky. Ms. Bogle and Ms. Mullen were absent. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Sadusky and unanimously carried. Election of Chair - Communications Committee By unanimous consent, this item was deferred until there are more members serving on the DHRC. Election of Chair - Community Engagement Committee By unanimous consent, this item was deferred until there are more members serving on the DHRC. DHRC Committee Updates Government Policy, Programs, and Practices Committee (McGiffin) Mr. McGiffin advised members that all of the data research had been completed for the Government Policy, Programs, and Practices (GPPP) Committee’s online survey of employees with regard to diversity in the City of Dover. Responding to Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Jody Stein, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, advised that no hard copies of the survey had been submitted to the City Clerk’s Office. Mr. McGiffin indicated that there were 23 responses to the online survey and he had started to put together the results from the interviews conducted with management employees regarding diversity in the City. Mr. McGiffin stated that he would write up the results of the survey and interviews and share them with Mr. Henderson, who also serves on the GPPP Committee. He indicated that they would advise the Commission regarding what they believe the results mean, and the Commission would then decide whether to accept, modify, or reject their analysis. Mr. McGiffin advised that that the GPPP Committee may suggest the next steps to address what was learned. He felt that both the survey and the interviews were useful. Responding to Mrs. Sadusky, Mr. McGiffin stated that approximately ten (10) City management employees were interviewed. He stated that the online survey was for non-management employees; however, respondents were not asked to identify themselves and responses could have come from any employee. Mr. McGiffin noted that one (1) employee who had been interviewed called to see if they should complete the survey as well, and they were told not to do so. He informed members that the surveys and interviews provided a broad range of feedback and that the GPPP would present their findings at the next meeting.

DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 20, 2016 PAGE 2 Community Engagement Committee By unanimous consent, this item was deferred. Education Committee By unanimous consent, this item was deferred. Communications Committee By unanimous consent, this item was deferred. Old Business DHRC Vacancies (First and Fourth Districts) Mr. Henderson noted that the Commission has two (2) vacancies for representatives in the First District and two (2) vacancies for representatives in the Fourth District. He indicated that he would reach out to the City Council representatives in these districts for suggestions for possible appointees. Mr. Henderson advised that he would be away during the month of August and asked that the next meeting be scheduled for September 21, 2016. Mr. McGiffin moved for adjournment. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Sadusky and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:23 p.m. Theodore A. Henderson Chair TAH/JS/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION\2016\07-20-2016 DHRC.wpd

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was held on July 26, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Slavin presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 6:11 p.m. and departed at 6:20 p.m.), Mr. Sudler (arrived at 6:08 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Cole, Mr. Hosfelt, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Lewis was absent. Mayor Christiansen (departed at 8:05 p.m.) was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Keller (Safety Advisory and Transportation), Mr. Blakeman (Utility), and Mr. Shevock and Ms. Stewart (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mr. Shelton and Ms. Arndt were absent. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Councilman Hosfelt presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Viability of the ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection and Location Service Deputy Police Chief Marvin Mailey informed members that gunfire is a major concern in the City, noting that the communities most affected are the least likely to report calls to 911, so gunfire is vastly under-reported. He advised that the Police Department had responded to 95 calls for service for shots fired in various areas throughout the City in 2016, stating that people are often gone when they respond. On the rare occasions when someone is hit, the Department conducts an investigation; however, these incidents are largely under-investigated due to lack of evidence. Deputy Chief Mailey explained that the ShotSpotter gunshot detection and location system works by triangulating the noise emitted from gunfire and helping to pinpoint the exact location. He noted that several audio devices or sound listening posts would be located throughout a sector of the City, and they would be able to pick up the noise, report it to a center, de-conflict that noise as a backfire from a car or other device, and report it to the Police Department to determine the location. Deputy Chief Mailey indicated that the current system depends on citizens calling from their residence or cell phone to report gunfire. Officers then respond to the area and conduct a grid search. He stated that the ShotSpotter would allow officers to go to the exact area of the shots. If subsequent shots are fired, they would be able to follow this on a grid map and possibly arrest those firing the shots, locate the handgun, and conduct their investigation in a professional way. Deputy Chief Mailey advised that ShotSpotter claims that 80% of all shootings go unreported, and he noted that it is not a foolproof system. Under daytime circumstances, the accuracy dips to about 25 meters from the sound device. He explained that when shootings are outside, the sensors triangulate to the system and help officers locate the exact location. Deputy Chief Mailey stated that the City of Wilmington currently uses the ShotSpotter system and Wilmington Police Chief Bobby Cummings was interviewed about this system in March. He explained that, even though ShotSpotter did not capture all of the data, it appeared that three (3) sensors would capture gunshots and alert the Police Department. ShotSpotter had enabled the City of Wilmington to respond to unreported gunfire and collect evidence, including shell casings, from crime scenes that would otherwise not have been collected. Deputy Chief Mailey stated that these shell casings were now

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 2 being entered into the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS) so they can be tied back to firearms. Deputy Chief Mailey indicated that the cost to cover a three (3) square mile area of the City would be approximately $195,000 per year, noting that the equipment would leased rather than owned and that grant funds were available. He stated that three (3) sources of grants and funding had been identified; however, they had expired since the research was done on the system. Deputy Chief Mailey advised that the federal government traditionally renews these grants each fiscal year, so more grants would be available in the next federal budget year. He informed members that there had been 17 shootings so far this year, no homicides, and 40 handguns had been recovered from the streets of Dover without having the benefit of the ShotSpotter. Deputy Chief Mailey felt this system could increase those numbers, reduce the rate of shootings, and keep the homicide numbers down to the desired level of zero (0). Responding to Mr. Hosfelt regarding the success rate or number of cases cleared in Wilmington as a result of the ShotSpotter, Deputy Chief Mailey stated that he did not have those exact numbers but that he could get them and report back. In response to Mr. Hosfelt regarding the availability of the $195,000 in grant funds that was mentioned for next year, Deputy Chief Mailey stated that he could contact Mr. Windley in Senator Carper’s Office, who helps the Police Department with federal grants on a routine basis. He noted that Mr. Windley is very good at finding grants and identifying sources to purchase equipment. Mr. Neil advised that a resident in White Oak Park had reported a shot fired, and questioned if the equipment would cover an area that distance from downtown. Responding, Deputy Chief Mailey stated that White Oak Park would be outside the area of coverage, which is approximately 400 meters from the site. He explained that the equipment would cover the area where the microphone is in position and, if located in the downtown area, it would not collect data from outlying areas across Route 13. Deputy Chief Mailey explained that gunshots outside the network of microphones would not be collected. In response to Mr. Neil, Deputy Chief Mailey stated that the cost would be approximately $65,000 per square mile and microphones must be affixed to light poles and raised areas to collect audio feedback. Only a small footprint would be covered, and ideally the system would be placed in the highest crime areas. Mr. Neil stated his understanding that if this system was wanted now, it would have to be the result of a grant. Having cursorily researched this system, Mr. Slavin advised that one of the complaints was about accuracy. He noted that the ShotSpotter would provide guidance to a certain grid, and within that grid it did not give any additional coordinates to someone who would be dispatched.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 3 Deputy Chief Mailey stated that, according to his reading, the ShotSpotter triangulates and is supposed to pinpoint a location. Theoretically, if gunshots were in the network of the sound gathering devices, it should be able to pinpoint an exact spot on a grid map so that officers could go directly there. He noted that a certain amount of disturbance would affect the system during daytime hours. Mr. Slavin indicated that this was what he was referring to, noting that other noise interferes. He noted that some police departments had purchased and then abandoned the ShotSpotter because they learned that for every shot that was fired where ShotSpotter identified a location, there was a correlation with a number of calls telling them where it occurred. They found it was cheaper to allow people to call on their cell phones and the calls tended to come quicker. In response to Mr. Slavin regarding any soft costs on the City’s end and how information would be received and what the intervention would be, Deputy Chief Mailey stated that the information would go directly to the dispatch center. The information on the dispatchers’ display would be sent to the responding officers and they would be given an exact location, rather than an area, to start their search. Deputy Chief Mailey indicated this would be additional information for dispatchers. Deputy Chief Mailey explained that the City of Wilmington has vastly different problems than Dover. He indicated that there are a lot of citizens who pick up the phone to let the Police Department know that shots have been fired in their neighborhood; however, it becomes very difficult for the Police Department to respond to a general area rather than a specific point to pick up the search. Deputy Chief Mailey advised that there are other systems on the market, noting that he and Councilman Hosfelt had attended a presentation at Dover Downs on a very good Verbi system. He noted that the equipment would be owned and the City would have it until the sensors need replacement. Deputy Chief Mailey advised that this system comes with a lofty price tag, but it includes military grade software and materials that are currently being used in the Middle East. He informed members that this would integrate directly with camera systems and go directly to any iOS device. Since it is web-based, if an officer had the application and shots went off, the officer would receive a message on their phone or tablet telling them where to go. Mr. Hutchison expressed interest in looking at Wilmington’s statistics and results and questioned how long they had been using this system. Deputy Chief Mailey believed that it was very new technology that was born out of the engagement in the Middle East, so he estimated that it had been within the last ten (10) years. He indicated that the ShotSpotter system must be leased rather than owned; however, the Verbi system would be purchased at a much higher price. Deputy Chief Mailey indicated that, although the up-front cost would be high, after five (5) to ten (10) years, less would be paid over the life of the equipment compared to a lease. He reiterated that ShotSpotter would cost $195,000 each year for three (3) square miles. He indicated that the Verbi representative had sent him a spreadsheet that indicated that over ten (10) years, there would be a savings of approximately $840,000 if the two (2) products were compared side by side. Deputy Chief Mailey noted that the Verbi system would cover a six (6) mile footprint rather than three (3) miles. Mr. Hutchison stated that the City of Dover Police Department has a great working relationship with the Dover community. He realized that this equipment could be considered; however, when the

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 4 price tag is considered, he felt that putting boots on the ground and possibly paying extra duty officers to become more involved in community policing would provide a better value than this device. Deputy Chief Mailey advised that the Department was currently doing this, and extra duty officers were assigned in high crime areas. In addition, he explained that the Department’s crime analyst identifies areas in the City that require police attention, and specific dates and times and patrols are assigned based on that intelligence. Deputy Chief Mailey noted that this system would take officers’ searches down from an area to a specific point, and this would be a benefit. Mr. Anderson indicated that Wilmington started testing this program in approximately 2014 in a small area and seemed to like it, so it was very new in Delaware. In regard to a cost/benefit analysis, he would like to evaluate if it fits Dover and not to commit to it. Mr. Anderson believed that there had been incidences when seven (7) or eight (8) calls were received about shots fired, but because of echoes and the way sound carries, it was indicated that gunfire came from different areas. He questioned if this system would have helped in this type of situation. Responding, Deputy Chief Mailey stated that, rather than looking at a sector of a couple of blocks, it would narrow the search to a specific point on a street where the first shot was fired. If several shots were fired during a drive-by shooting, it would tell the direction of vehicle travel and indicate in red dots on a grid map exactly where the first and sequential shots were fired. Deputy Chief Mailey explained that, in general, officers currently go from one (1) block to another and look for shell casings or stop to try to solicit responses from the people on the street. Having been on the street when shots were fired, he noted that sound bounces all over at night. Mr. Anderson advised that he had also been on the street when shots were fired. Mr. Neil questioned if upgrades would be part of the system or if it would fall behind if technology accelerates. Responding, Deputy Chief Mailey believed that if equipment was leased and newer technology came out, newer equipment would be provided; however, he stated he would have to confirm this information with ShotSpotter. If the equipment was purchased, an upgrade to newer equipment would have to be purchased. In response to Mayor Christiansen, Deputy Chief Mailey was not aware of any other cities in the area currently using the equipment. Mayor Christiansen suggested taking a trip to other communities that have a system in place to confirm the information provided by Mr. Slavin and learn about the success or failure in other communities before purchasing the equipment, and Deputy Chief Mailey concurred. Mayor Christiansen felt it sounded like a great system that would assist the City’s police officers in doing what is necessary. In response to Mayor Christiansen, Deputy Chief Mailey stated that he believed that preventive maintenance would be included in a contract but indicated that he would have to check. Mayor Christiansen requested that Deputy Chief Mailey provide he and the Committee information on other communities within a reasonable radius of Dover that are using a system. He expressed the desire to hold a conference call with officials or take a trip to find out the worthiness and effectiveness of the product. Mr. Hosfelt suggested, once it is established that a city or township is to be visited, that a member of Council attend such a meeting.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 5 Mr. Hutchison moved to defer Viability of the ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection and Location Service for further investigation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Assessment of the Possibility of a Comprehensive Review of Emergency Medical Services Within the City of Dover During the Special Council Meeting - Budget Review held on May 24, 25, and 26, 2016, concern was expressed regarding ambulance service, partially due to the result of the Operational and Administrative Analysis - Dover Fire Department - Final Report - March 2016. Chairman Hosfelt indicated that, at that time, there was discussion about possibly forming a committee or getting a group together to look at the City’s ambulance service. He stated that he believed that the City was in its second year of at least a three (3) year ambulance contract, with two (2) possible one (1) year extensions. He advised that he had held preliminary discussions with people in the industry throughout the State and desired to form a committee or at least bring back to Council suggestions regarding a committee to look at the City’s ambulance service to see if it is deficient, if there is agreement with the study, and move forward from there. Mr. Hosfelt noted that he did not have knowledge regarding the ambulance service and was unsure if other members did, noting that there may be a couple of members of staff that have more knowledge. He felt that getting a committee of experts throughout the State together may be a good idea to see if the best interests of the citizens are being served. Mrs. Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator, explained that she would address questions that were raised during the Special Council Meeting - Budget Review. She advised that, at that time, Mayor Christiansen had asked how PrimeCare bills for each individual transported. Mrs. Sass stated that the City’s contract with PrimeCare specifically lists how fees are charged. She advised that the contractor accepts Medicare, Medicaid, and contracted insurance carriers as full reimbursement unless there is a deductible or coinsurance payment on the patient’s insurance. Mrs. Sass indicated that PrimeCare can bill for the deductible, and outside of that they do not bill. Mrs. Sass advised members that Mayor Christiansen had noted that Hartly responded to an incident and questioned if Hartly was eligible for the fee. She explained that Hartly’s numbers were low and the City reciprocates what Hartly does for Dover, noting that Dover reciprocated 110 times in 2015. She expressed the importance of understanding the magnitude of the number of calls that Dover takes in, noting that calls had doubled in the last ten (10) years. In 2015 there were 8,856 calls for PrimeCare and in 2005 there were 4,460. In regard to the number of times that the Fire Department was called to assist PrimeCare, Mrs. Sass indicated that this information had been requested from the Fire Department multiple times. She explained that she had documentation from 2009 and 2013 asking that this information be provided when issues occur so that the City can investigate these incidents. Mrs. Sass stated that both she and the Mayor had asked for this information, and on July 20, 2016 they received only the numbers for each year. To date in 2016 there were 13 calls, and in 2015 the Fire Department assisted with 37 calls, which was less than 0.5 percent. Without knowing the date or time of the calls, Mrs. Sass had no way to investigate what occurred that caused the call. She felt it likely that calls were related to an obese population, noting this is particularly common for elderly, non-ambulatory individuals, and

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 6 two (2) people arriving at such a scene in an ambulance sometimes need assistance to lift these people. Mrs. Sass advised that in one such documented case from 2013, the weight of a Kent General Hospital patient was estimated at 465 lbs. and the two (2) people in the ambulance requested assistance. She indicated that if she had more details, she would be able to determine why assistance was needed; however, she had been able to get documentation for only two (2) incidents since 2009. Mrs. Sass noted that Mr. Hosfelt had expressed concern that PrimeCare knows that they can make insurance money if they are in a position to make a run. He felt they were taking runs when they should be on standby in the City to handle its issues. Mrs. Sass explained that neither the City nor PrimeCare determines which calls they go on since everything goes through the Kent County 911 Center. She explained that Mr. Kevin Sipple, Assistant Director, Kent County 911, and the rest of the group do a superb job of providing documentation every month to the City so that calls can be reviewed. Mrs. Sass stated that if they are dispatched to a call, they must make that run. They do this in the order of runs, and when Dover is not available, they go down a list. Mrs. Sass noted that since the City particularly relies on Camden and Cheswold, who help Dover out tremendously, the City started giving them a donation a couple of years ago. To her knowledge, this is the largest donation that these organizations receive to keep their services going. Mrs. Sass explained that this is part of being a good neighbor, noting that the City deals with a lot more runs than Camden and Cheswold. In response to Mr. Hosfelt, Mrs. Sass indicated that she did not have the numbers with her regarding the number of times Camden and Cheswold had assisted the City; however, she explained that the City had just made its donation to them. Mrs. Sass noted that the donation amount is determined by a formula based on the number of calls that they responded to and the number of times the City responded to them. She stated that the number of scratches is deducted, a certain percentage is given to other things, and the recent total was roughly $15,000. Mr. Hosfelt questioned if two (2) ambulances were run during the day and one (1) at night in 2015. Responding, Mrs. Sass stated that PrimeCare was required by the City’s contract to run one (1) ambulance 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week, and the other ambulance runs from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven (7) days per week. She advised that this is when additional coverage is needed, noting that data supplied by Kent County shows how many calls come in per hour and a spike in calls could be seen. Mrs. Sass stated that the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. coverage had started prior to her involvement with the contract. In response to Mr. Hosfelt regarding the number of ambulances and shifts in 2005, Mrs. Sass stated her belief that just one (1) ambulance was run until 2009. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Mrs. Sass indicated that the City’s current contract with PrimeCare extends until March 30, 2018. Mr. Hutchison noted that one of Mrs. Sass’ duties and responsibilities is to be the personal contact to work with PrimeCare and questioned if she was aware of any problems or issues this year. Responding, Mrs. Sass explained that if any issues come through, she talks them over with the City Manager, contacts PrimeCare and tells them what she has heard or needs information on, and within 24 hours they provide all necessary documentation. She noted that there had been a couple of cases where accusations were made; however, Kent County does a great job of providing information.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 7 Mrs. Sass cited an instance where they were able to provide her with a recorded conversation from an individual who made a complaint, which cleared PrimeCare of any wrongdoing. In response to Mr. Hutchison, Mrs. Sass indicated that she was not aware of any issues that the City had regarding the total service that PrimeCare does for the City of Dover and surroundings. Mayor Christiansen asked if the 8,856 calls were single carries or multiple patients. Responding, Mrs. Sass indicated that to determine the call details she would have to go through and check each call. She stated that she could ask PrimeCare if they could provide that information. In regard to the average billing per run, she stated that this would depend on the insurance; however, a basic breakdown of the fees indicated that emergency stretcher transports are $425, emergency stretcher mileage per load and mile is $9.95 per mile, and a flat rate service call fee is $125. Responding to Mayor Christiansen regarding billing for refusals once an ambulance goes on location, Mrs. Sass indicated that PrimeCare does not bill for refusals. She advised that she had spoken to a private fraud investigator from the Department of Insurance in February 2013 when complaints were made by some local individuals, and they did a thorough investigation of PrimeCare and all of their billing. They stated that Delaware does not have a fee schedule and the amounts charged are based on usual and customary fees for the area. Mrs. Sass explained that, as far as the investigator was aware, PrimeCare ambulance service charges logical prices for responding. She stated that he indicated that all ambulance services charge for responding to a scene, whether they end up transporting a patient or not. Mrs. Sass advised that the fraud investigator found absolutely nothing wrong; however, they had suggested verbiage that could be added, some of which was used for the new contract. Mayor Christiansen expressed appreciation for Mrs. Sass’ efforts and the information she provided, stating that she does an outstanding job juggling all of the jobs that she does. Mr. Hosfelt questioned if Mrs. Sass, as a City resident ,was satisfied with the service received from PrimeCare, and she responded that she was. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, questioned if the Committee wanted to form a committee for the Request for Proposals (RFP). He stated that the City had just entered the second year of the contract and the City had approximately 19 or 20 months before the contract ends. Mr. Koenig stated that if Council wants to issue an RFP, staff would be more than happy to. He noted that the operational study indicated that Dover has enough activity and call volume to attract a national carrier. Mr. Koenig stated that the difference between local and national carriers is that a national carrier may not charge the City a standby charge. He estimated that approximately $20,000 to $21,000 per month is paid to PrimeCare as a standby charge and a national carrier would survive on pure billing. He explained that the City pays a monthly fee for the 24/7 unit and a separate bill for the 7/7 unit. Mr. Koenig informed members that a couple of years ago there was discussion about adding a third shift, at a value of approximately $10,000 per month or $120,000 per year. This was compared to making an approximate $15,000 contribution to the volunteer fire departments that are helping the City. Mr. Koenig stated that the volunteer fire department contribution was better financially both for the City and for the companies that were assisting.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 8 From a contract management standpoint, Mr. Koenig stated, in his opinion, that the PrimeCare contract was reasonable. The complaints heard, after investigation, had been generally unfounded as they worked their way through the system. He noted that the consultant had stated that if the City was not already in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) business, this would not be a business to begin incurring the start-up cost and billing responsibility. From a managerial standpoint, Mr. Koenig stated that staff was not recommending bringing the service in-house because the City was getting reasonable service from the private providers and would recommend continuing the operational relationship between a private service provider and the City of Dover. If an RFP was done, he recommended doing it in a format that could be distributed nationally and incurring the cost to do a national advertisement in a national publication, which, to his knowledge, the City had not done previously. Mr. Hosfelt stated that this could be budgeted for in the next fiscal year. Mr. Koenig suggested working on the RFP within the next three (3) months, noting that the cost to advertise would be part of the very late FY 17 or very early FY 18 budget. The RFP could be issued at the beginning of FY 18, which would allow enough time to get proposals back, select a provider, and have a transition period if the City changed providers. Mr. Neil stated his understanding from the study that there would be a cost savings if a national provider were used and if the ambulance could use the City’s facilities to house the ambulance. Mr. Koenig stated his understanding that the cost components from the study were twofold, noting that if the City obtained a national provider: 1) the City would not be paying the monthly standby charge currently being paid for service; and 2) instead of renting building space from the private sector, as PrimeCare currently does, a national provider could potentially rent space inside the firehouses from Robbins Hose Company. Mr. Koenig noted that this relationship is not within the control of the City Manager but would have to be authorized by Robbins Hose Company. Mr. Neil moved to recommend that staff prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) to look at emergency services. The motion was seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried. Overview of the Airport Environs Overlay Zone Related to Dover Air Force Base and Fordham Brewery Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, explained that, in December, Fordham and Dominion Brewery Co. had applied to the Planning Commission for an expansion of the brewery on Horsepond Road. When that application came in, there was some discussion at the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) meeting. Mrs. Townshend indicated that the Dover Air Force Base community planner is part of the DAC and attends meetings when there are applications that are near the Base, or specifically within what they identify as the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). She advised that, for the City’s purposes, the AICUZ zone is the Airport Environs Overlay Zone (AEOZ). Mrs. Townshend stated that, at the time, staff did not have a lot of detail, but there seemed to be an increase in events being seen at the Base. Unfortunately, a lot of these events did not come to the Department of Planning and Inspections for permits, so staff did not have a clear number. Mrs. Townshend explained that at the DAC meeting, staff talked to Mr. Jim Lutz, who was then serving as Fordham’s Chief Executive Officer, about the importance of getting permits when they have special events and the fact that they are in what is

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 9 called the Accident Potential Zone (APZ) II, which does not allow for public assembly. Staff advised that if Fordham was planning to have more events than they had in the past, there would be a need to look at the restrictions. Mrs. Townshend indicated that staff was assured by Mr. Lutz that Fordham did not have any interest in having more than two (2) to three (3) events in a year. Mrs. Townshend informed members that approximately one (1) month later, the City Fire Marshal’s Office happened to see a post on Facebook by the brewery that showed overcrowding at a release party held in the brewery. This raised a flag from the Fire Marshal’s standpoint because Fordham is a manufacturing facility from a building and fire code standpoint and had not been reviewed and approved as an assembly. Mrs. Townshend noted that it became a concern when people were packed in elbow to elbow in a facility that had not been reviewed for egress and those types of things associated with an assembly use. At that point, the Fire Marshal’s Office reached out and Fordham was instructed that anything other than the standard tours and tastings that would be incidental to the brewery use would require additional review. Mrs. Townshend stated that the Fire Marshal’s Office also reminded Fordham that if that side of their business was going to grow, this would require a discussion with the Planning Office because of the AEOZ. Mrs. Townshend stated that by April, Fordham was starting to have more events, staff was finding out about them, and they were not getting permits. There had been some staffing changes at the brewery, and she felt that some of this fell through the cracks. Staff reached out again and reminded Fordham that they had to get permits when they have events. Mrs. Townshend indicated that in early May, staff received a number of special event permit applications that included multiple events in a month. The initial series of applications included three (3) during the month of May, farmers markets throughout the summer on Saturdays, and a release party once per month, in addition to other community events. Mrs. Townshend stated that staff then looked hard at the AEOZ and reached out to the Base community planner so that staff was not making assumptions about the zone that were not what the AICUZ’s expectations were. She stated that the zone specifies temporary uses no more than five (5) days. When staff met with the Base, they believed that this type of use was not what Fordham had presented when they came through the process. Referring to correspondence dated May 31, 2016 from Mr. Matthew Jordan, Dover AFB Community Planner, Mrs. Townshend stated that this letter reiterated that, under their AICUZ, Fordham is a manufacturing facility. She alerted Council that staff was going to need to address this issue and staff sent a letter to Fordham. Mrs. Townshend indicated that, at that point, the issue began to get more publicity, legislators expressed concerns, and ultimately there was a meeting at the end of June to discuss what resolution there might be. Mrs. Townshend stated that Fordham’s attorney had presented an alternative for the City to look at to modify the City’s Zoning Determination and Administrative Policy. She advised that the determination was drawn from the zoning district itself and from the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Townshend indicated that the purpose of the AEOZ is to protect public safety in the areas around the Base and to protect the viability of the Base. She informed members that one of the City’s commitments to the United States Air Force was to protect the areas around the Base from encroachment of incompatible uses. Mrs. Townshend noted that the issue was not that the City was trying to do something to a business but that this business had changed. When they opened in 2004, they were strictly a brewery and did not have any events. Mrs. Townshend advised that a review of

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 10 the City’s records revealed that the first special event permits were issued in 2012. She indicated that this issue grew up under the radar and the City’s responsibility to the Base was to make sure that the City lives up to the commitment made in adopting the AEOZ. Mrs. Townshend stated that the AEOZ was initially adopted in 2001, so it was in place when Fordham located there. She stated that some people had indicated that there are events on the Base. Mrs. Townshend noted that the APZs are not necessarily just the areas around the Base. Referring to the maps, she explained that the APZs were the pink linear areas off the ends of the runways where there is an increased risk of crash, based on statistics provided by the Air Force. Mrs. Townshend noted that this is something that other military towns with air installations have and felt that a lot of people did not understand the purpose of the zone and, in particular, the locations of the APZs. In response to Mr. Sudler regarding a related the meeting that was held at the end of June, Mrs. Townshend advised that she was not part of that meeting. She indicated that this was a meeting with the Mayor, Council President, City Manager, and representatives of Fordham, noting that Mr. William Pepper, Deputy City Solicitor, was also in attendance. Mr. Sudler questioned what kind of staff changes were made that allowed the concern to fall through the cracks. Mrs. Townshend indicated that this matter did not fall through the cracks on the City’s end but she believed it fell through the cracks on Fordham’s end. She stated that she was not entirely familiar with their staffing changes; however, she knew that the CEO to whom staff talked in December was no longer there by spring; therefore, the person who made the commitment that they were not looking to grow their event business was no longer there. When Mrs. Townshend talked to the director of marketing after staff sent the letter on June 6, 2016, that person relayed to her that the events were a very big part of their business. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Townshend advised that staff had not issued fines and at this point was trying to get things to be compliant. She indicated that staff did not necessarily know when Fordham was having events. Mr. Neil requested that his memorandum to the Mayor and Council dated July 25, 2016 Re: Airport Overlay Zone (AEOZ) and the Fordham and Dominion Brewery be included in the record (Attachment #1). He stated that, in the event of an air accident, there would be a chance that the City could be sued if the City did not insist that the brewery follow what is in the crash zone. Mr. Neil pointed out that there was a second liability issue dealing with the Fire Marshal. He felt this was not entrapment on the City’s part, noting that there was evidence of a broken agreement on social media. Mr. Neil stated that no fines had been levied, only counseling. He reiterated that the City could be sued if what was discovered by the Fire Marshal was not enforced. Mr. Neil felt that there was a second issue related to good faith in dealing with the Air Force. He stated that if it was free enterprise, the Air Force Base could leave because the City had broken its agreement with them by not enforcing what is in that zone. Mr. Neil noted that they could pack up and leave, and if they cannot do so, he questioned if this meant the City should break its agreement with them to allow the business to expand without doing anything about it. He questioned if the City could move actively with an ancillary location that is not in the zone to allow them to expand. For example, Mr. Neil noted that the Kent County Tourism wine trail will now be at Harrington. He questioned if the City could acknowledge that Fordham had broken the agreement and the Fire Marshal laws, note that the

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 11 City had not fined but only counseled Fordham, and take an active step as a Council by turning to the committee that is dealing with economic expansion and find someplace for Fordham away from this zone where they could have their events. He did not feel the City could break faith with the Air Force simply because they cannot pack up and leave. Mr. Slavin expressed his hope that neither Fordham nor the Air Force Base were being portrayed as the bad guys in this matter, stating that this would be a disservice. He noted that these two (2) entities were simply doing their business and it was evolving. Mr. Slavin stated that the City is growing. He thought that, as a City government, Dover needed to be out of the business of being siloed and make sure that zoning and enforcement are in line with economic development policies, so that the City does not approach businesses saying that they are wrong and the City wants them to move. Mr. Slavin asked members to imagine being the business owner receiving this news, noting that they may have been a loyal, taxpaying business in Dover for the past 10 years, built up their brand and business and become successful, and now the City wants them to move. He stated that the answer would be that they would move to Milford, Smyrna, or someplace else that is beating the City to the punch on all of the businesses being lost. Mr. Slavin indicated that Dover was not losing to Annapolis or Anaheim but to Smyrna and Milford for this very reason. He felt that these are the moments when Dover can become viable as a City or not. Mr. Slavin stated that this zoning was passed in 2001 and felt that when something is passed and becomes a zone, it is not sacrosanct or unchanged forever. He stated that in the past 15 years, the entire business model for Fordham and Dominion and that industry had changed. Mr. Slavin noted that he is not a defender of their business and understood that they must catch up on some things. Mr. Slavin advised that this industry was no longer just about putting product in bottles and they need the ability to sell it in a very personal way by mixing it with food and the experience of being there. He felt that this is what had made Dogfish Head in Milton so successful, noting that their plant does not just have bottling but has much more. Mr. Slavin felt that there was a need to respect the fact that this had changed since 2001, noting that since 2001 the entire fleet and the types of airplanes that fly in and out of Dover Air Force Base had changed since 2001. When they recently did renovations on their runways, they used temporary flight patterns with airplanes over the City. Mr. Slavin did not recall them coming to the City saying that there was a need to change the zones during that temporary period. Mrs. Townshend stated that the AEOZ was updated in 2011 after the Air Force adopted their AICUZ study for 2010, so this zoning district had not remained static. The text and maps had been updated based on the most current information provided by the Air Force. Mr. Slavin stated that the City had shown moments where it could be viable and flexible and take activities, zoning, and enforcement and align them with economic development, for example the Firefly Festival. When Dover Downs wanted to put 80,000 people there listening to rock music, the City found every possible way to make this happen, and Mr. Slavin was glad that this was done. He felt that now there was a desire to snag on a single business in a single location that had dedicated itself to being in Dover. Mr. Slavin advised that, when he spoke to them, they indicated that they were very happy and proud to be in Dover but were at the end of the line with this matter. He stated that picking up and moving and building new infrastructure was not something that they wanted to do. Mr. Slavin suggested that the City should become smart and more nimble, and understand that the City is growing and, as it grows, there is a need to respond to that growth. He felt that the City

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 12 should not simply hold up a book of ordinances and say sorry, no we can’t do that, we are in the enforcement business, period. In his opinion, this was the wrong approach to take. Responding to Mr. Hare regarding what the zoning was prior to being updated in 2011, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Air Force did not change the APZs, which are the same as they were prior to the update. Based on the change of the fleet, they updated the noise contours, which shrank. She indicated that some areas went from a more restrictive too a less restrictive noise zone, and some came out of the noise zone entirely. Mr. Hutchison advised that Dover Air Force Base is one of the City’s largest employers. He stated that the Base operation is unique and there is no other air base that has the relationship this Base has with Dover’s community. He noted that many people work every day with the personnel at Dover Air Force Base, including the leadership team, congressional leaders, governors, and members of the General Assembly, Kent County Levy Court, and the City. Mr. Hutchison stated that the Base has two (2) major missions, including the C5 and the C17, and they are strongly being considered for a third mission involving a tanker unit. Because of the relationship that the City has with the Base and the new addition to the runway, he felt that Dover had an excellent opportunity to have another mission, and he noted that the mortuary is there as well. Looking at the Fordham business, Mr. Hutchison noted that they had a business license and he had no problems being flexible, but when it came to encroachment or perceived encroachment on Dover Air Force Base, he had serious concerns. He hoped that everyone would be very sensitive to this issue moving forward. Mr. Hutchison stated that he feels the City is very open-minded about protecting existing businesses. Mr. Sudler concurred with Mr. Slavin, stating his concern that at times the book of nos is pulled out but when it comes to major events the answer is yes. He questioned how a yes was pulled out in an agricultural zone area for the Firefly Festival when there are other events that do not have that major restriction and the City finds nos. He felt the need to be consistent with leniency and flexibility when it comes to zoning issues. Mr. Neil felt that the City should do what was done with the Firefly Festival but do not encroach upon the City’s deal with the Air Force Base. He felt that Fordham needed an ancillary base that is not in a crash zone where they can hold their events. In terms of economic development, Mr. Neil believed that the City should consider what can be done to help Fordham that is not in a crash zone that sets up a liability issue for the City, and also in regard to what the Fire Marshal had asked for. He suggested seeing if something can be arranged for them to have their events not in a crash zone. Mr. Neil also believed the City should live up to what they had said to the Base as far as this zone is concerned. He stated the need to develop something outside the box. Mr. Hare agreed with Mr. Slavin, expressing his belief that a compromise could be reached. Referring to events in the crash zone, Mr. Hare stated that the Air Force Base was extending invitations to set up and have big events in the crash zone. He indicated that they were not just holding events on their property but were being invited to do events at the Air Force Base where hundreds of people show up. Mr. Hare felt that a happy medium could be reached and that there was a lot more to this than having an event at the brewery in the crash zone, noting that peripheral things go on that needed to be looked at.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 13 Mrs. Townshend advised members that Chapter 10 of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan deals with economic development, and one of the top goals of the plan as it relates to economic development is to protect the viability of the Dover Air Force Base, since it is a major driver of the City’s economy. Mrs. Townshend advised that the Planning Office had worked very diligently with the business and the development communities to update ordinances over the last five (5) to seven (7) years so that they are more flexible, more things can happen in the commercial zones, and there are more opportunities for economic development. She noted that this does not necessarily mean saying yes to everything everywhere. In regard to the issue of consistency raised by Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Townshend indicated that this was one of her biggest concerns about making an administrative decision that she believed would go exactly against what the City committed to the Base in adopting the AEOZ. She noted that other businesses had wanted to locate within this zone and to do things that included public assembly that the City had said no to. Mrs. Townshend stated that people had come to her stating that the City said no to them and questioned why Fordham kept having these events; therefore, this was an issue of consistency. She noted that there are a lot of things in the Zoning Ordinance that are black and white and have a yes or no answer, and staff abides by that; however, there will always be gray areas. When there is gray area, Mrs. Townshend advised that she does her best to work with the applicants to make sure that the gray area is used in a way that benefits the public interest and the applicants. She indicated that there are zoning determinations that do this. Mrs. Townshend stated that many people in the business community would say that she is fair and consistent, and if the flexibility is there, she will use it and if it is not she does not. In this case, Mrs. Townshend did not believe that the Code had given staff flexibility, and she did not believe it was appropriate for her to make an administrative decision that could potentially have a long-term impact on the viability of the Base. She explained that the Zoning Ordinance and State statute set it up that zoning appeals go to the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Townshend talked to Fordham about this and they did not want to go to the Board of Adjustment. She advised that there was the possibility of them getting a variance to allow that use but not to expand it so that it goes on to other places. Mrs. Townshend indicated that the issue of encroachment starts when there is one incompatible use, and then another down the road, and before you know it there is a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission that suddenly finds that there has been encroachment. Mrs. Townshend explained that, although members may not think this is a possibility in Dover, from the research staff had done in 2005 when the BRAC Commission looked at bases for closure, the Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach was not on the Secretary’s list for closure. However, the Commission put it on the list simply because there was encroachment of incompatible uses. Mrs. Townshend explained that in order for the base to keep their military installation, Virginia Beach had to adopt a lot of code amendments and purchase land to eliminate some of the incompatible uses. During the past winter, Norfolk’s city council approved a special exception for a banquet hall that would have a capacity of 80 people, which is less than those attending many of the Fordham events. Mrs. Townshend noted that Norfolk is APZ II, which is essentially what Dover was looking at. In Virginia, the person in the cabinet position in charge of military affairs, as well as the mayor of Norfolk, came out stating that the city had made a mistake, and the city had to go back and work with this property owner at the city’s expense to relocate this business.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 14 For clarification, Mrs. Townshend indicated that this was not something that she takes lightly or that she is looking at an antiquated zone that does not take into account current priorities. She explained that this was about the commitment the City made to the Base and the long-term economic viability of the Base. If City Council wished to amend the zone, she stated that this was within the purview of the Council. In Mrs. Townshend’s determination, the statement she made was that she did not believe that the discretion was there to go beyond where things were. Mrs. Townshend stated that this matter was being looked at based on what the attorney had provided to the City. She reiterated that she did not believe it appropriate for an administrative official to make a decision that was absolutely contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and the adopted Zoning Ordinance. Referring to Mrs. Townshend’s comment that economic development was not to say yes to every opportunity, Mr. Slavin wanted the record to reflect that this was not what he said. Mr. Hutchison questioned if the City had a temporary agreement with Fordham between now and the end of the year. Responding, Mr. Hare said yes. [City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to the meeting, Mrs. Townshend sent correspondence to the Fordham and Dominion Brewing Company dated August 1, 2016 regarding events at the brewery that included details pertaining to this agreement (Attachment #2).] Mr. Hutchison stated that the concerns had already been addressed to take care of the issue until the end of the year and there was no need to take any action on this; however, between now and the end of the year there would be a need to come to an understanding. Mayor Christiansen indicated that the agreement was in the vein of compromise to allow Fordham to work with the planner and was not to supercede the requirements of the particular zoning. He stated that, at that point in time, he and the Council President felt it was incumbent upon them to sit down with them and discuss the issue. Mayor Christiansen commented that he had never seen anything that was so dangerous that it could not be talked about. He advised that no carte blanche was given to Fordham and it was still open to discussion and massaging so that they could continue to operate there within the parameters and permitting. Mayor Christiansen indicated that the City emphasized that Fordham has to have permitting to hold any of the events that they wish to have because no person or business in the City should be above the rules and regulations in place. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee meeting was held with Chairman Cole presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hutchison moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 15 Evaluation of Proposals - Underground Utility Locating Services Contract Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, informed members that the Underground Utility Locating Service Contract would affect both the Public Works and Electric Departments. He advised that, years ago, the City did its own locating services through City staff; however, over the past ten (10) years this had been privatized. Mr. Koenig stated that the current provider is W Locco, LLC and this contract would be coming to an end. Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) through the City’s procurement manager for services similar to those currently being received, and two (2) proposals were received, one (1) from Century Engineering, Inc. and one (1) from W Locco, LLC. Based on the staff evaluation, staff recommended W Locco, LLC of Georgetown, Delaware, because they are the current provider and their proposal was lower than Century Engineering, Inc., even with granting Century Engineering local vendor preference. Mr. Koenig noted that the savings would be substantial. He indicated that the estimated expense to this year’s budget would be approximately $66,000. Using the average cost over the past three (3) years, it was expected that an amount between $60,320 and $61,495 would be spent, based on evaluation of the proposal. Staff recommended awarding a one (1) year contract with the option for two (2) one (1) year extensions to W Locco, LLC, as per the proposal submitted in response to RFP #16-0044COD. In response to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig stated that average spending over the last three (3) years for locating services was $61,495. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend acceptance of staff’s recommendation to award a one (1) year contract with the option for two (2) one (1) year extensions to W Locco, LLC, as per the proposal submitted in response to RFP #16-0044COD. The motion was seconded by Mr. Blakeman and unanimously carried. Dedication of Public Infrastructure - Dover High School Pump Station and Force Main Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised members that the Dover High School pump station was constructed in accordance with City specifications with the intent to be turned over as public infrastructure. He explained that this pump station currently serves only the Dover High School facility but was intended and sized to cover extended infrastructure that will serve the Leander Lakes apartment complex, and potentially other areas to be developed in the vicinity of the City. Mr. Koenig indicated that the developer of the pump station had reached a point where they would like to dedicate the infrastructure. He stated that one (1) Smith and Loveless 4B2B Vacuum Primed Pump Station would be dedicated, as well as approximately 1,512 linear feet of six (6) inch sanitary sewer force main. Mr. Koenig noted that the estimated value based on construction would be $565,070. Staff recommended acceptance of the pump station and associated force main at the Dover High School, with dedication to include the entire referenced infrastructure. Mr. Koenig advised that, once dedicated, staff would do the maintenance and it would become part of the City’s renewals over a very long period of time. Mr. Koenig stated that this was public infrastructure, so the City would have ownership of all the infrastructure dedicated.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 16 Mr. Blakeman questioned if Leander Lakes Apartments would put any money into the pump station or if Dover High School was responsible for building a pump big enough to handle the apartments without being compensated. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that he had not brought this information; however, he believed that the station was designed and sized for all of it. He indicated that it may have been a matter of changing some of the impellers on the pump, and if this was determined during the construction agreements, Leander Lakes may have paid for a larger pump impeller. Mr. Koenig advised that the station, as currently constructed, was adequate to serve what is currently proposed. He noted that details were worked out early in the construction and he did not have them available. Mr. Koenig indicated that there would not be a payment from them to the City of Dover for any type of infrastructure improvement. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend acceptance of the pump station and associated force main at Dover High School, with dedication to include the entire referenced infrastructure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held with Chairman Hare presiding. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Discussion of Duties and Assignments of City Personnel Council President Slavin indicated that the issue of the duties and assignments of City personnel had arisen on a number of occasions and indicated a need for clarification. He advised that, in March 2013, City Council took action to reorganize City government which involved reorganizing the duties assigned to employees in the Public Works, Information Technology, Finance, and Planning Departments. Mr. Slavin requested that the City Clerk send an excerpt from the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 25, 2013 (Attachment #3) to all members of Council, as well as the citizen members of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Subsequent to the meeting, this information was emailed to all members of Council and the civilian members of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee.) Mr. Slavin advised that the first vote on this matter had not passed and the second vote passed by a vote of five (5) to three (3), with one (1) member absent. He felt it would be worthwhile for members to look at what actions Council took to reorganize City government at that time.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 17 Mr. Hosfelt moved to defer this matter until members have all the information they need. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare indicated that this matter would possibly be brought back in the second week of August. Proposal for Dover Public Library to Serve as a Passport Acceptance Facility Mr. Kirby Hudson, Assistant City Manager, reminded members that during the Regular City Council Meeting of July 25, 2016, members had the opportunity to listen and learn about two (2) major events that the Dover Public Library would be putting on: 1) a Maurice Sendak Exhibit which was anticipated to bring in huge numbers of people, and 2) Dover Comic-Con. Mr. Hudson advised that in the few years that Comic-Con had been held, its numbers had grown exponentially, not by the hundreds but the thousands. Mr. Hudson advised members that everything the library does costs money. Mr. Hudson reviewed correspondence from Ms. Margery Cyr, Library Director, dated July 11, 2016, RE: Passport Services. He stated that at the end of May or beginning of June, Senator Chris Coons’ office contacted the library to let them know that the U. S. State Department was anticipating a major increase in people renewing or requesting passports. Senator Coons wanted the libraries to know that this could be an opportunity for extra revenue. Mr. Hudson explained that the Dover Public Library could meet all of the requirements to become a Passport Acceptance Facility. He reviewed the benefits to the City and to the library, stating his belief that this service would aid an area that is greater than the City. Mr. Hudson indicated that the library would retain a $25 acceptance fee for each passport application, as well as income from any added services, such as passport photos, fees for expediting, etc. He noted that the U. S. Passport Services would provide email and telephone support from their regional offices in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Mr. Hudson stated that the hours proposed for passport services were Monday - Friday, 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. and Saturday - Sunday, 1:00 - 4:00 p.m. Mr. Hudson advised that not all posts offices provide passport service, and although the Dover Post Office does, their hours are very irregular and he been told that they are not convenient. Mr. Hudson indicated that this was one of the reasons that Senator Coons had asked libraries to look at this possibility. Mr. Hudson explained that Ms. Margery Cyr, Library Director, advised him that when she worked at a public library in central New Jersey in 2008, they were engaged in passport services operating during evening and weekend hours. She indicated that they were easily bringing in over $90,000 per year. Ms. Cyr advised that she was told that eight (8) years later they were pocketing a healthy six (6) figure income, with the service paying for itself since funds did not have to be shared. Mr. Hudson noted that this library has a full-time program that operates 67 hours per week. Mr. Hudson stated that staff was proposing that two (2) passport agents could come in at the Library Clerk I level, with a hiring preference for veterans. After removing operating expenses, 75% of the funds collected would go to the library and 25% to the General Fund. The library funds would be used for programs such as the Maurice Sendak Exhibit and Dover Comic-Con. Mr. Hudson noted that the library is not short on ideas but does not necessarily have all the funds needed for them. He

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 18 felt that something like this could bring in dollars to be able to do those sorts of things without having to ask the City for extra funds. Staff recommended authorizing the City Manager to submit the necessary documentation to provide passport services at the Dover Public Library and incur the necessary expenses to implement and manage the program. Mr. Sudler felt that these were great, common sense thoughts and stated that he would support the proposal. Responding to Mr. Sudler regarding the projection for labor costs, Mr. Hudson stated that a Library Clerk I makes $13.40 per hour. At 15 hours per week, the cost would be $201 per week, with an annual cost of $10,452. Mr. Hudson estimated, including FICA and Workers Compensation in the amount of $1,780, that two (2) part-time employees working 15 hours per week would cost $23,000 annually. Mr. Hudson advised that only 21 states were currently beginning this program and Dover would have the only such program in Delaware and Maryland. Mr. Hudson advised that this could become very busy, explaining that individuals in Maryland and in this area who need these services and do not go to the post office go to Washington, D.C. or Philadelphia. He stated that staff anticipated a lot of traffic and felt this could be a good revenue source for the City. Mr. Cole questioned if this would be addressed on a year-to-year basis or would be a two (2) or (3) year undertaking. He asked what would happen if the first year did not go as planned. Responding, Mr. Hudson stated that the City could discontinue the service whenever it wanted to. He stated that he and Ms. Cyr wanted to ensure that the individuals hired would know that this is experimental. He noted that this would be the first such program in the State, and staff knew of only one (1) library in New Jersey where this had been done successfully. Mr. Hudson indicated that it had the potential to blossom and that Senator Coons had reached out to other libraries. Mr. Hudson felt that the Dover Public Library was perfectly suited for it, believing that there was no other larger library, other than perhaps the Wilmington Library. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, stated that she did not recall reviewing all of this information. Mr. Hutchison questioned if a database or filing system would be needed if the City were to issue passports. Responding, Mr. Hudson stated that the library would be a service center that collects information and would not issue passports. Applicants would fill out an application and the agent would use a checklist to ensure that all information is complete. Mr. Hudson indicated that this would be the beginning of the process and the final portion would be taken care of at the Philadelphia or Washington, D. C. regional office. Passports would be shipped directly to the applicant.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 19 Mr. Hosfelt questioned why the City would not start with one (1) additional employee rather than two (2). In response, Mr. Hudson stated that the requirement for two (2) employees was included in the guidelines for eligibility. Mr. Hosfelt asked if it would make more sense to wait until the new budget year. Responding, Mr. Hudson questioned why this would be necessary. He noted that the supplies would be provided, it was known that the Dover Post Office was not adequately serving the public and, according to the U. S. State Department, an up-tick in people applying for or renewing passports was anticipated. In response, Mr. Hosfelt stated that this item was not budgeted. Mr. Hudson stated that there would be no funds coming from the City. Responding, Mr. Hosfelt noted that $23,000 in salary expenses were expected. Mr. Hudson presumed that the money collected from all of the business would cover this expense. Mr. Hosfelt indicated that he was not opposed but wondered why this was being considered now. In response to Mr. Hosfelt regarding whether the budget could absorb a $23,000 change if this proposal did not work out, Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, stated that staff desired to apply for the program, and Council’s authorization was needed. Mr. Koenig was unsure whether the employees would be new staff members or if existing staff members would be trained. He believed that the thought was to try to make current employees available during passport service hours. Mr. Koenig noted that numbers had not been fine tuned because staff was unsure how detailed this program would be. He advised that staff saw this as a positive service and a potential revenue generator for the library and the City. Mr. Koenig was reluctant to commit to the estimated $90,000 in revenue, stating that he did not believe this would happen the first year. He indicated that he wanted to make the application, tie down the numbers, and report back to Council, stating that staff wanted authorization to go through the process to place the City on the list to become a passport facility. Mr. Koenig believed that this would be a positive revenue source but stated the need to understand what it takes to exit the program. Referring to the recommendation that veterans be given preference in the hiring process, Mayor Christiansen stated his understanding that there would be additional personnel. He asked if it would be permissible for these employees to perform other library-oriented work when they are not processing applications. In response, Mr. Hudson stated that he felt they could probably do other things and that he would obtain the information. Mr. Shevock questioned how the program would be promoted. Responding, Mr. Hudson indicated that the U.S. government would assist with promotion at no additional cost to the City. Mr. Shevock suggested that this service be placed on the City’s website. Mr. Hare questioned if there would be overtime hours if existing staff were used. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that there would not be overtime hours, reiterating his belief that part-time employees at the library would be used and some of the hours would be back-filled. Mr. Koenig stated that all guidelines would be followed and the intent was not to convert an existing part-time person to a full-time person to administer the program but to try to perform the service at the lowest

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 20 cost possible. He stated that there would be no benefits associated with the part-time Library Clerk I positions credentialed to be passport clerks. Mr. Hare stated that to break even or a little above, it would be necessary to process 1,000 passports. He indicated that he had no problem with this as a temporary program to see how it goes. Mr. Neil stated that he was very much in favor of the proposal because it would be very convenient to have this service at the library. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend acceptance of staff’s recommendation to authorize the City Manager to submit the necessary documentation to provide passport services at the Dover Public Library and incur the necessary expenses to implement and manage the program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison and unanimously carried. Proposal for Dover Public Library to Adopt a Smoke-Free Policy Ms. Michelle Hughes, Assistant Library Director, stated that it was proposed to adopt a smoke-free policy for the library grounds. She reviewed a request for the Library property to be designated as a smoke-free area. Ms. Hughes advised that staff often receives complaints from library visitors about people who sit outside and smoke on a continuous basis, and referenced two such complaints received within the past month. She indicated that another reason for the proposal was that there had been several mulch fires, most recently in June 2016, when the Dover Police cadet on duty used a fire extinguisher to put out a fire. Ms. Hughes stated that staff knows there are people on library property outside of library hours and there is concern about the possibility of significant damage to the building if a mulch fire started when staff was not present to notice it. Ms. Hughes cited several current proposals for smoke-free policies that were under evaluation. She indicated that the Dover Public Library respectfully requested that the Committee recommend the Library grounds be designated as a smoke-free area. A map of the Dover Public Library Proposed Landscape Improvement Plan designating the proposed border of the smoke-free area was displayed (Attachment #4). Mr. Sudler believed that the State of Delaware had a no-smoking policy within 25-feet from any public facility and questioned if the Dover Police Department would be able to issue citations with this law in place. He questioned how this would work in conjunction with what was being asked and felt that if this was in place, the City could be capitalizing on it and giving out citations. Mr. Sudler stated that he agreed with the no-smoking zone for the library. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, advised that the library has signs indicating that there is no smoking within 25 feet of the building; however, there is no reference in the Code, to his knowledge, that would allow enforcement. He indicated that he was unsure if there was a fine. Mr. Koenig advised that staff’s request was to designate the library as a smoke-free campus, and the cadets would enforce the policy under the Dover Code of Ordinances rather than code enforcement staff. He believed that cadets are present during most or all hours of operation of the library. In response to Mr. Hare, Mr. Koenig stated that the cadets have the ability to write tickets for a series of things.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 21 Mr. Hare questioned if this could be expanded to all City property. He noted that there are many people from the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) walking across the street to the former library and Weyandt Hall and throwing cigarette butts down. Mr. Koenig advised that this discussion was limited to the library to address very specific issues at the library. He advised that this discussion could be expanded; however, this request was related to the library. Mr. Slavin stated that he supported the proposal 100%. He indicated that two other pieces were in the proposal’s favor: 1) the Clean Indoor Air Act, which prohibits people from smoking within so many feet of an entrance to a public building, and 2) the National Fire Protection Act, which prohibits people from congregating around egress points for a building. Mr. Slavin noted the need to anticipate where smokers would go once they are banned from this campus. He indicated that urns could be set up at certain places; however, he noted that the pictures in the presentation entitled “Dover Public Library - Smoke Free” showed that no one was really paying attention to urns. Mr. Slavin stated that he would also support looking at further banning of smoking on all City property, similar to what the State of Delaware had done, noting that the State does not allow smoking. He felt that smoking had no place in City parks. Mr. Neil moved to recommend authorizing the City Manager to implement a smoke-free policy on the campus and grounds of the Dover Public Library, seconded by Mr. Hosfelt and unanimously carried. Request to Solicit Real Estate Services - Garrison Oak Technical Park Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, informed members that staff was requesting authorization to solicit commercial real estate services, primarily for the Garrison Oak Technical Park (GOTP). He noted that one (1) of the shortcomings of that piece of property was that, in discussions over the past two (2) years, some real estate agents had been reluctant to bring buyers to the City because the property was not listed. Mr. Koenig stated that there was concern that they would be left out of the transaction and not be awarded a commission. One of the ideas discussed to help market the available property at GOTP was to list the available properties with the commercial real estate industry with the understanding that they will be granted a commission. Mr. Koenig stated that he would like to prepare a one page letter of interest/Request for Proposals (RFP) to be submitted to the City Manager’s Office. He advised that the RFP would go out with the required notification and staff would be allowed to evaluate those submissions and select a commercial real estate broker, and the properties would then be listed. Mr. Koenig advised that if Council wanted to review the evaluations, staff would bring them to Council for consideration. He stated that the request was to authorize staff to put out the RFP, evaluate the proposals, and award a listing contract without further Council review. Staff recommended authorizing the City Manager to solicit interest and proposals for providing real estate services for available property in the Garrison Oak Technical Park and award of the services contract will be delegated to staff unless otherwise requested by City Council.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 22 Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Koenig stated that there would be no direct cost, but there would be the indirect cost of a commission transaction if there was a buyer. Mr. Hare questioned if this would be given to one commercial realtor. In response, Mr. Koenig advised that the property would be listed by a commercial real estate firm. When listed, all agents from any commercial firm would understand that there is a commission involved. He stated, for example, if Company A was selected to represent the City in commercial services and it was listed with Company B, they would split the commission, similar to a regular real estate transaction. Mayor Christiansen questioned if selection of the realtor would be approved by the Economic Development Committee. Responding, Mr. Koenig advised that this request came out of staff- related discussions with that Committee; however, that Committee does not have authorization to take official action. Mr. Koenig explained that the official action would be the current request to allow staff to put out the RFP, select the company, and list the property. He noted that the Economic Development Committee would not vote. Mr. Hosfelt moved to recommend authorizing the City Manager to solicit interest and proposals for providing real estate services for available property in the Garrison Oak Technical Park. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole. Mr. Sudler questioned, when the listing is provided to one agency, if that information would be provided to other realtors. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated his belief that they would use a multi-listing service and it would be picked up electronically by other people. Mr. Shevock questioned if the City would have to go through the exclusive listing if the economic development group had a major company that was interested in a big portion of the properties. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that if a prospect came in before the property was listed, that transaction may occur without a commission; however, once it is listed he felt that, ethically, the City would have to go through that person for any transaction. Mr. Slavin stated that he was supportive of this request. Noting that the Economic Development Committee had no authority to enter into these kinds of agreements, Mr. Slavin strongly encouraged the Economic Development Committee members to draft language granting them a way to act on contracts without further review by a Committee or City Council in order to expedite the process. Mr. Hare suggested putting an exclusion in the RFP that the commission may be reduced if the City finds the buyer. Mr. Sudler suggested that this request be referred to the Economic Development Committee. Responding, Mr. Slavin indicated that, because the Economic Development Committee did not have the authority to take any action, the item would come back to the Council Committee of the Whole. The motion to recommended authorizing the City Manager to solicit interest and proposals for providing real estate services for available property in the Garrison Oak Technical Park was unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 23 Consideration of Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Review and Approval of Any Positions that Remain Open for Over Six (6) Months Without Being Recruited During the Special City Council Meeting - Budget Review of May 26, 2016, Council referred consideration of whether any position that remains open for six (6) months without being recruited to the Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee. Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager referred to the spreadsheet entitled “Positions Open for Six (6) Months or More - July 20, 2016.” He advised that most of these positions were being actively recruited and provided an update, as follows: 1) Part-time Customer Service Representative - Collections - This employee left approximately six (6) months ago and discussions had been held through this morning on recruiting for this position. There was an internal request to recruit differently than is on the posting sheet, and staff was reviewing the request in accordance with policy. 2) Electric Generation Superintendent - This position was created in the last budget and was funded for six (6) months in the FY 16 budget from December through June. This recruitment is out and there were interested applicants. This employee would serve as the bridge between the Electric Department and the City’s generation assets. This is a critical function in the long term for the viability of the electric utility. At least one (1) interview was scheduled for later this month with a viable candidate. 3) Key Accounts Representative - This was listed as a new position with a new title since a position in Customer Service was re-titled. The position was being actively recruited and had been vacant approximately 13 months ago beginning in Customer Service, but staff was nearly ready to offer a job, provided that the final interviews go well. This employee would develop significant relations with the City’s major customers so that the City can address their needs in the future. The industry is very dynamic and there were discussions about how to accurately project changes in load demands, interactions with customers, and new types of metering and interaction. This employee would be key to making those relationships work. 4) Public Works Operations Manager - This position had been moved in and out of the budget, most recently when several labor grade positions were moved around to obtain funding for this opening. It had now been actively recruited and interviews were tentatively scheduled for August 3rd through August 5th. 5) Motor Equipment Operator II Grounds - Mr. Koenig advised that staff had been playing a lot of leapfrog with some of the labor positions, noting that the hiring of one (1) person can create a cascade effect. This position had been open for eight (8) months, was currently being recruited, and would be open until filled.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 24 6) Crew Leader Grounds - An offer had been made and this employee would start shortly. 7) Utility Maintenance Mechanic II - This is a pump station mechanic, and there had been incredible difficulty filling these positions over the last couple of years. Mr. Koenig advised that this is a technical expertise that people are not running to at this point at the pay the City is offering. Several people had been hired in this capacity who had moved to the electric utility in metering and substations. With these technical skills, there is ability to transfer to the electric utility with a higher rate of pay, so there had been internal pirating of staff with employees in the water/wastewater utility going to the electric utility. 8) Motor Equipment Operator I Water (2) - Two (2) positions were open. Mr. Koenig advised that although the time of vacancy was listed as three (3) years and three (3) months, this was not continuous because one (1) position had been filled and another became vacant; therefore, there had been a revolving vacancy for some time. Mr. Koenig stated that, in addition to the work being difficult, these employees are out in the weather and have on-call requirements, and this dynamic adds difficulty in recruitment. They are sometimes on call once per month for a week. 9) Motor Equipment Operator I Sanitation - This had also been a revolving door. Staff had been recruiting and intended to fill this position to maintain the service. 10) AS400/System Operator - This position had not been recruited due to discussions related to the Enterprise Resource Program (ERP). The AS400 System Operator Program left 13 months ago, and this position was purposely left open due to the desire to develop a clear vision as to what HTE would be replaced with and what skill set is needed for that. 11) Administrative Assistant - IT - This position was also left open so that a vision could be formulated for the future of the ERP system. The AS400/System Operator and Administrative Assistant positions would likely support any transition that happens with that system. Mr. Koenig indicated that at the next committee-level meeting, staff would be making a recommendation on the consulting side of the ERP system to begin that process. This salary will be used shortly thereafter to help support the internal implementation of either a new system or continue to support the existing system. Mr. Koenig stated that these positions were all important in different aspects to different components of the City. He stated that he was steadfastly behind continuing recruitment for each of the positions and getting them filled so that it could be determined if the City has the right people and skill sets

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 25 to provide service. Mr. Koenig thought that all departments feel stretched in some ways. Recruitment had been very difficult and there had been a number of retirements and resignations. He stated that it seemed that every time an employee was hired, after a brief period there is a resignation, retirement, or a shift to another department. One higher-level opening can create a cascade effect that, through the normal recruitment process, leaves an opening for quite some time. Mr. Koenig advised that the Human Resources Department had been very active in recruitment, noting that Ms. Corinne Mosher, Human Resources Coordinator, had spent almost all of her time over the past year heavily involved in recruitment. He stated that staff was proud of the people hired, especially those brought in over the past few years, because the markets are seeking good workers. Mr. Koenig explained that there was pressure to fill positions at the equipment and labor levels because there are many people out there simply chasing the dollar and, in some cases, this hurts the City because the benefit package for certain professions and occupations gets overlooked by those who simply look through the paper at the dollar per hour. Mr. Koenig expressed his hope that members would support staff in continuing to recruit all of these positions and get them hired and underway to continue to provide service as indicated in the budget. Mr. Hosfelt stated that what he hears most often is that the City is not willing to pay enough for the positions to beat the marketplace. He questioned if the City was at the point that Human Resources should do another study. Responding, Mr. Koenig recalled that the last study done by the Management Advisory Group was updated in 2009. He indicated that this is a very sticky question, noting that labor unions had negotiated with the City in good faith and came to agreement on costs. Mr. Koenig stated that the City was being squeezed in a couple of areas where there were concerns; however, doing a full-blown labor study using a disinterested third party is significantly expensive and takes quite some time. Mr. Koenig felt that this would create a massive level of distraction during that timeframe and, at this point, he was not of the opinion that the City should solicit any type of pay study. He believed that they might be surprised at some of the numbers that would come back from the study. Mr. Koenig thought that certain positions in the marketplace were having competitive difficulty. He advised that it is typically found that the City is overpaying for certain positions and underpaying for others. Mr. Koenig indicated that in the labor contracts, for example IBEW, it is recognized that the City posts in-house first, and there is usually a cascading effect up the ladder in the electric utility. System knowledge is important in the electric utility, so they like to hire at the groundworker, entry level and work employees up through the system so they gain all the system knowledge. Mr. Koenig stated that this is also the preference in the water and sewer utility, and in this utility the City is competing with construction companies such as Teal Construction, Inc., where the City typically loses in the dollars per hour area. In regard to sanitation, Mr. Koenig stated that responses come in spurts, and they may get two (2) people from one (1) advertisement and nobody from another. For this reason, filling some of these positions had been sporadic. Mr. Koenig stated that the City had held a number of job fairs over the last year, one at the Pitts Center and one at the Dover Public Library. They were well attended and the City had obtained several recruits as a result; however, staff had been on a constant hamster wheel of recruiting over the past year or more and there were still quite a few open positions. Mr. Koenig stated that staff would always know the pulse of the market and what the market was paying; however, in reading any of the magazines, especially at the professional level of recruitment, some of the numbers were

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 26 getting significantly high. He was not in favor of a salary studying because he did not feel the options had been exhausted at this point. Mr. Hutchison questioned how long the recruiting process was for the Electric Director position. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that a headhunter was used with an agreement that the City would pay based on the hiring of a successful candidate. The headhunter brought a number of recruits, some of whom were extremely highly paid, some in the $170,000 plus range. Mr. Koenig advised that there was a struggle to find someone and Mr. Harry Maloney, Electric Director, came to him through a discussion with Mr. Kirk Betts, the City’s utility attorney. He stated that the reason the City was able to get Mr. Maloney was because he was retiring from the City of Vineland, New Jersey and had retirement benefits. Because he was dedicated to public power and was willing to give the City of Dover what he hopes is a number of years as both an Electric Director and a teacher of the distribution system discipline. Without Mr. Betts’ help and Mr. Maloney’s interest in being a teacher, Mr. Koenig did not feel the City would have found the person that it did. When staff came to Council to discuss this recruitment, Mr. Koenig’s concern was that it would cost $150,000 or more to hire an Electric Director because that was the low end of the market. The actual market for that type of expertise is significantly higher than what the City is paying. Mr. Hutchison noted that there were a lot of changes taking place in the electric system while they were seeking an Electric Director. He agreed with Mr. Koenig’s approach to getting the director in place to see what their needs were. Many positions in the electric system were on hold until the director was identified so that he could make his own assessment, sit down with the City Manager, and work out a master plan. Mr. Hutchison stated that those positions on hold each have a special skill set in the workplace, noting that this takes a lot of time. He credited the City Manager for his patience in getting staff in place. Although it was slower than Mr. Hutchison liked, he noted the need to work with the market. Mr. Koenig stated that Mr. Maloney treats the Dover electric system as he treated the Vineland system, which is like a child. Mr. Maloney’s requests had been very deliberate and he had made some very good hiring decisions, in some cases taking a non-traditional approach. Some of the hires attracted to the electric utility had basic knowledge and electrical experience, and were learning the positions. Mr. Koenig stated that he and Mr. Maloney had discussed the need to rebuild the managerial function of the electric system because a number of people had retired and that expertise left with them. He noted that the electric utility had been extremely beneficial for the City of Dover; however, the units are getting older and decisions will have to be made regarding potential replacement. Mr. Koenig advised that replacing capacity in the system requires a great deal of work and the human component is very important. He reminded members that none of this work is done without a human hand touching it and it is important to have the staff expertise to do it. Mr. Hare stated that Mr. Koenig had commented last year that Mr. Maloney spends a lot of time managing the plant. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that Mr. Maloney spends a lot of time working hand-in-hand with NAES, who is the plant operator. Mr. Hare questioned why the City was paying NAES $7M per year if Mr. Maloney was going to work hand-in-hand with them. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that this had been previously discussed.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 27 Mr. Hare recalled that during last year’s budget discussions it was said that there would be a meeting to review the total picture of the City’s electric utility over the next five (5) and 10 years and decide where the City was headed and if plants would be rebuilt. He indicated that this meeting had not been held. In addition, he stated that Mr. Hutchison had brought forward a motion to have the City get better control of its pay system and compare it to the market, the State of Delaware, and towns around Dover and this had not been done. In regard to the Electric Generation Superintendent, Mr. Hare stated that Mr. Koenig could look for this individual; however, it must come back to Council for approval when Mr. Koenig decides that he has the individual. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that this was one of the reasons that this discussion was being held, noting that he wanted authorization to hire the Assistant Generation Manager position. He stated that this position was placed on hold because a lot of things had been going on. In response to Mr. Hare regarding the five (5) and 10 year plan, Mr. Koenig stated that every budget includes a five (5) year Capital Investment Plan (CIP). He stated that power supply contracts had been brought before Council over the last year that included the purchase of generation and long- term energy, so these issues were coming before Council as a series of packages rather than in one package. Mr. Koenig advised that when the City renegotiated the NAES contract that was authorized by Council several months ago, one of the reasons that the fee for The Energy Authority (TEA) was reduced, and he believed for the flat contract renewal for NAES, was due to the current active management at the City level that had previously been turned over to the third-party contracts. He stated that the purpose of having the human interaction at the Electric Director and Assistant Generation Manager level was to reduce the outside labor that the City was previously paying for. Mr. Koenig stated that the power plant, especially with a unit that was built in 1961, is a specialty trade and, in his opinion, it was better for the City to privatize the plant operation because they can use whatever means necessary to hire an operator, such as flying someone in from across the country and bringing in expert talent, because the burden is on them to provide the operators. Mr. Koenig reminded members that the City had a lot of difficulty running the plant efficiently years ago. The purpose of privatization was to help the City get out of the long-term liabilities of employees. He noted that a premium is paid for that in some cases; however, the City would have no long-term liability associated with that plant, other than the contract. Mr. Koenig reiterated that it is specialty work. He noted that Mr. Maloney knows the running of the plant, but the City is not tasked with that. Mr. Koenig stated that the whole purpose of the Assistant Generation Manager position was to rebuild the managerial capacity of the utility, which is the golden goose for the City, referring to the $10M cash transfer, plus an additional $3M - $4M in like services that are part of the utility. He stated that the City would either have the unit for another 10 or 15 years, and may build new units, or the units may be retired over the next 10 or 15 years, but the City would likely have some type of generation asset in the system. Mr. Koenig stated that the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) was authorized several months ago and that study is underway. He advised that, as recommendations are made from the study, they will be presented to Council. Mr. Koenig stated that the Assistant Generation Manager position and these projects were discussed during the budget authorization and he stated that the only thing that had not been done, which was done internally, was a comparison of pay rates with the State and some other municipalities. Regarding a salary study, Mr. Koenig noted that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get an apples to apples comparison because of the way that jobs are formulated in each municipality and there is

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 28 always subjectivity. He stated that there are cases where Smyrna is hiring entry-level people at a higher rate of pay than Dover and the City would have to address this issue in the future. Mr. Koenig stated that he expects that if a pay study was done, it would come back that the City would need to pay more, and this was his concern, since, in some cases, it may be substantially more. He explained that, when using the recruiter for the electric director, the people being sent to him were not even on the pay scale of the components in the City’s current pay scale. Mr. Hare stated that he felt that the City should get the IRP done before doing anything, stating that the meeting had not been held to discuss what would be done. He noted that the plant was over 50 years old and questioned what would be done in the next five (5) or 10 years and if the City would rebuild this plant. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the next five (5) years was laid out in the capital plan. Mr. Hare questioned if the grid would continue to pay the City in the next five (5) years or if Dover would no longer be needed because of the number of other plants around Dover. He expressed the need to talk about the electric utility and make a decision about what would be done. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that the electric utility had been discussed and Council decided when the system was valued that they wanted to keep the electric utility. Mr. Hare stated that there were two parts to the issue, the plants and the network. He noted that two (2) plants had been closed and questioned if these plants were getting close to being closed also. Mr. Cole stated that this matter could be discussed at a Utility Committee meeting. Mr. Hare stated that the positions in IT had been vacant for 13 and 16 months. He indicated that when it is decided to list the positions, they should come back to justify why they were needed. Mr. Koenig requested that they not be required to be presented to the committee and stated that he would abide by whatever Council decides. Mr. Hare felt that the Electric Generation Superintendent should be put on hold until the IRP was completed and reviewed. Mr. Koenig disagreed. In response to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Koenig stated that all positions except the two (2) in IT were currently being recruited. The Assistant Generation Superintendent had been advertised and candidates were being interviewed. Mr. Hutchison felt that members should support pursuing the positions that Mr. Koenig was already working on. Mr. Neil moved to recommend acceptance of staff’s recommendation to reaffirm the authorization to recruit all open positions as the City Manager deems necessary. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutchison. Mr. Sudler concurred with Councilman Hare that further information was needed to determine exactly what would be done. He stated that there had been a lot of discussion in the past, noting that he had only been on Council for one (1) year; however, he felt it would be pertinent to this decision.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 29 Responding, to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hare indicated that two (2) positions had been vacant for 13 and 16 months and the Electric Generation Superintendent was a new position. Mr. Sudler questioned if there would be any harm to the City to wait another 60 days before filling those positions. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that if a viable candidate were to seek another position and take a job somewhere in the next 60 days, it could hurt the City. Mr. Hare mentioned the two (2) positions that had not been filled for 13 and 16 months and noted that Mr. Koenig had indicated that he was waiting to get the ERP report back before filling these positions. He asked why there was a rush to hire them now if they had not been filled for over a year. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that staff had not rushed into hiring them and the simple request was that the hiring of those positions be left to the City Manager because that is an operational function of the City. He stated that this is what Council hired him for as the Chief Administrative Officer. Mr. Hare noted that the positions had been left to the City Manager for 13 months and 16 months and had not been filled. In response, Mr. Koenig stated that this was a courtesy that the Finance Director and he had talked about so that they could potentially pool money. Mr. Hare stated that they had been using the funds for those positions for other things. Responding, Mr. Koenig stated that the funds were not used for other things. Mr. Hutchison reminded members that there was a motion and a second on the floor. Mr. Hutchison called for the question. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Neil, Cole, Hosfelt, Hutchison, Slavin, Shevock, and Stewart), two (2) no (Sudler and Hare), and one (1) absent (Lewis). The motion to recommend acceptance of staff’s recommendation to reaffirm the authorization to recruit all open positions as the City Manager deems necessary was carried with Mr. Sudler and Mr. Hare voting no. Proposed Ordinance #2016-19 Amending Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, and Chapter 50 - Floods (Consolidation of Construction Code Appeals Committee and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals)(Sponsors: Cole, Hutchison, and Neil) Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that this ordinance was drafted by the City Clerk’s Office as a result of a number of discussions between the Department of Planning and Inspections and the City Clerk’s Office related to the Construction Code Appeals Committee and Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals. She stated that these are two (2) separate boards that hear appeals of different sections of the building code. The Construction Code Appeals Committee is currently made up of the City Manager and two (2) members of Council and the Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals is made up of the City Manager, one (1) City resident generally selected as a representative of homeowners, and a representative of the real estate industry. Mrs. Townshend stated that staff proposed that the Code be amended to join these two (2) boards, noting that there is a bit of overlap in the jurisdiction. She

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 30 indicated that because these are three (3) member boards, there had been a number of cases where there had not been a quorum. Mrs. Townshend explained that the ordinance would take the membership of those two (2) boards and consolidate them into one (1), which would include the City Manager, two (2) members of City Council, a City resident that is generally selected as a representative of homeowners, and a representative of the local real estate industry. This body would hear appeals of building and fire code issues, as well as property maintenance appeals, such as exterior property maintenance, suspension of rental permits, and vacant buildings. Mrs. Townshend stated that staff believed this would improve the functionality of the board and the ability to get a quorum, as well as eliminate the need to comb through the code to decide which of the two (2) boards would hear an appeal. In response to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Townshend stated that this would also include an appeal for denial of a construction permit. She indicated that there would be five (5) members on the board, noting that currently there are two (2), three (3) member committees and the City Manager is on both; therefore, it would merge the two (2) compositions together. As the former Chair of the Construction Code Appeals Committee, Mr. Sudler stated that, although he supported this amendment, he did not feel that Mr. Koenig should be member of this committee due to the fact that code enforcement and planning work closely together. It was Mr. Sudler’s opinion that it was a conflict of interest for Mr. Koenig to approve or disapprove of Mrs. Townshend’s judgment. He stated that he did not feel this was fair to the appellant because their working relationship creates a conflict of interest. Mrs. Townshend suggested, if any one (1) of those positions were to come off the committee, that it remain a five (5) member committee; otherwise, there would be challenges with an even number. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2016-19, as amended to change the composition of the members by replacing the City Manager with an elected City official (Attachment #5), due to the close working relationship between the City Manager’s Office and the Planning Department. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m. By unanimous consent, the Council Committee of the Whole meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. Timothy A. Slavin Council President TAS/TM/js/dd S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2016\07-26-2016 CCW.wpd

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 26, 2016 PAGE 31 Attachments Attachment #1 - Memorandum from Councilman Neil dated July 25, 2016 Re: Airport Overlay Zone (AEOZ) and the Fordham and Dominion Brewery Attachment #2 - Correspondence to the Fordham and Dominion Brewing Company from Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend dated August 1, 2016 Attachment #3 - Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 25, 2013 Attachment #4 - Map of the Dover Public Library Depicting the Proposed Border of the Smoke-Free Area Attachment #5 - Proposed Ordinance #2016-19 with CCW/LF&A Amendment #1

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole July 25, 2016 Meeting of 07/26/2016 To: Members of the Dover City Council cc: Mayor Robin Christensen, Scott Koenig, City Management and Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development From: Fred Neil, 3rd District Re: Airport Overlay Zone (AEOZ) and the Fordham and Dominion Brewery Frankly, I am not certain where we stand in regards to the expanded events program as proposed by the Brewery. I know that our friends in the State Legislature have expressed their support for those additional events. Unfortunately, they do not share the liability issues we face. My concerns are as follows: 1. Our relationship with the Dover Air Force Base is at stake. As I understand it, the AEOZ was created with the information provided by the Air Base’s Air Installation Compatible Use Zone. Do we really wish to break faith with the Air Base by pushing the limits agreed upon, particularly since this Base or the role of this Air Base can be down graded or lost entirely as the military is shrunk? I believe we need to tread carefully. 2. How does this affect other businesses that may wish to operate in the Zone? Have we already had others who have been turned down? Are we to deny them the right to locate in the zone and have public events beyond what is currently permitted? 3. In addition to the Good Faith the City has developed with the Air Base, what liability does the city have in the event a disaster does occur? We can not deny we were aware of the possibility of an accident or the high level of noise, which can be a health hazard. Will the brewery sign off on a liability agreement protecting the City? Will their patrons or the patrons’ family sign off each time they attend an event? 4. Adding to the risk and Good Faith Issues with the Air Force Base, and the zoning liability issues, there is the Fire Marshall liability issue. Does the Brewery meet the basic requirements of the facility being used by large crowds for egress? Have they already broken the law in the past with events if the building does not meet the requirements set by the Fire Marshal? I think we all want to see the businesses located in Dover be successful and wanting to expand. If there is a way to help them with an auxiliary facility, I am for it. However, until we resolve these issues, the Fordham and Dominion Brewery issue can’t be a done deal.

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of City of Dover 07/26/2016 August 1, 2016 Dan Louder Fordham and Dominion Brewery Company 1284 McD Drive Dover, DE 19901 Dear Mr. Louder: On June 6, 2016, I sent you a letter regarding the temporary events at the Fordham and Dominion Brewery. Fordham and Dominion Brewery is located within the Airport Environs Overlay Zone – Accident Potential Zone (AEOZ-APZ II), which restricts public assemblies and other people intensive uses. In my letter, I referenced a zoning interpretation and administrative policy that would limit the number of public events at the brewery to five per year. This is based on the Zoning Ordinance’s limit of five days for temporary uses. Mark Dunkle submitted an alternative proposal on behalf of Fordham and Dominion Brewery, and on June 29, 2016, representatives from Fordham and Dominion Brewery met with representatives of the City of Dover. The following individuals were present at that meeting: Mayor Robin Christiansen, Council President Tim Slavin, City Manager Scott Koenig, Deputy City Solicitor William Pepper, Fordham Marketing Director Ryan Telle, and attorney Mark Dunkle. As I understand, at that meeting that a compromise position was reached that would allow for 40 hours of events (five “8-hour” days) for the remainder of 2016, and that Mayor Christiansen and Council President Slavin would propose ordinance amendments to address the issue of events in this area on a more permanent basis. I have shared this direction with the Department of Planning and Inspections staff, and to date, they have approved nine hours of events on July 8, August 5, and August 18. They will continue to monitor the total hours as event permit applications are received. As previously shared with brewery staff by the Fire Marshal’s Office, small tours and tastings are permitted as incidental to the brewery use. This number of people to meet this threshold will be governed by the occupant load of the tasting room. As there is no posted occupant load, the Fire Marshal’s Office will measure the tasting room and provide an occupant load to be posted. Any event that exceeds this number is subject to a special event permit. P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Letter to Fordham Brewery August 1, 2016 2 of 2 If you have any questions, please contact me at (302) 736-7196. Sincerely, Ann Marie Townshend, AICP Director, Planning & Community Development cc: Scott D., Koenig, P.E., ICMA-CM, City Manager The Honorable Robin R. Christiansen, Mayor Members of Dover City Council Mark Dunkle

ATTACHMENT #3 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/26/2016 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on March 25, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Leary presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Perza, Mr. Bonar, Mr. Hare, and Mr. Hutchison. Mrs. Williams was absent. Council staff members present were Police Chief Hosfelt, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief West, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Anderson requested that Item #5A - Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - March 11, 2013 - Permanent Assignment of Duties Associated with Interim Managerial Plan and Organizational Changes be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Dixon and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Anderson, Dixon, Lynn, Bonar, Hare, Hutchison, and Leary), one (1) no (Perza), and one (1) absent (Williams). LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - MARCH 11, 2013 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on March 11, 2013 with Chairman Lynn presiding. Permanent Assignment of Duties Associated with Interim Managerial Plan and Organizational Changes Mr. Scott Koenig, City Manager, reminded members that in December of 2011, he requested and implemented a number of organizational changes related to several staff vacancies and the changing needs of the City’s organization. He noted that since that time, a number of staff positions had been filled while others had been vacated through resignation or retirement. Mr. Koenig reviewed and requested support of permanent changes to staff assignments, salary and organizational structure, as follows: Public Works Under the original Interim Plan, Ms. Sharon Duca, P.E. was elevated to the position of Interim Public Works Director. Since that time, Ms. Duca has been offered and accepted the position of Public Works Director. One of her tasks has been to review the organizational structure of the reformed Public Works Department. In June 2012, the Public Utilities Operations/Construction Manager resigned from his position. Instead of filling this position, which supervised the City’s construction crew in addition to other duties, the staff members that formerly reported to the position were placed under the supervision of the Water/Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor, Mr. Ralph McDougall. Originally, their assignments were related mostly to general maintenance items. In February 2013, the construction crew aspect of their duties was re-activated to begin construction of a new water line to support the Garrison Farm Development. New projects will continue to be assigned to this crew under the supervision of Mr. McDougall. Since the construction crew was not formerly the responsibility of the Water/Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor, the

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT #4 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/26/2016

ATTACHMENT #5 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 07/26/2016 CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-19 WITH COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AMENDMENT #1 (CCW/LF&A#1) (CCW/LF&A#1 indicated in green text) 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL 2 MET: 3 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I - In General, Section 22-1 - Construction 4 Code Appeals Committee of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and 5 inserting the blue text, as follows: 6 Sec. 22-1. - Construction code appeals committee Construction and property maintenance code board 7 of appeals. 8 (a) Established; composition; appointment. There shall be a committee to be referred to as the 9 "construction code appeals committee," “construction and property maintenance code 10 board of appeals,” consisting of three five (5) members, one of whom shall be the city 11 manager. The council president shall appoint and the other two (2) three (3) being 12 elected city officials and the mayor shall appoint one (1) city resident generally selected 13 as a representative of homeowners and one (1) representative of the local real estate 14 industry association. The city officials shall be appointed by the city council president 15 at the council annual meeting. Members shall serve one-year terms unless sooner 16 removed. All appointments are subject to confirmation by the city council at its second 17 regular meeting in May. The construction and property maintenance code board of 18 appeals shall elect one of its members as chairperson. 19 (b) Appeals. Whenever any person is aggrieved by a decision of the building inspector with 20 respect to the provision of this chapter, it is the right of that person to appeal to the 21 construction code appeals committee construction and property maintenance code 22 board of appeals. Such appeal must be filed, in writing, within 30 days after the 23 determination by the building inspector. 24 (c) Notice; hearing. Upon receipt of such an appeal, the construction code appeals committee 25 construction and property maintenance code board of appeals shall set a time and place 26 in not less than ten, nor more than 30 days for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Notice of 27 the time and place of the hearing of the appeal shall be given to all parties, at which time they 28 may appear and be heard. The determination by the construction code appeals committee 29 construction and property maintenance code board of appeals shall be final in all cases. 30 (Code 1981, § 5-3; Ord. of 4-25-1994) 31 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 32 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article III - Building Code, Section 22-61 - Adopted, 33 Subsection (a) - International Building Code adopted, Section 113 - Board of Appeals of the Dover Code 34 be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the blue text, as follows:

Proposed Ordinance #2016-19 - Chapter 22 - Building and Building Regulations; Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection; and Chapter 50 - Floods Page 2 35 Section 113 BOARD OF APPEALS. See Chapter 22-Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I-In 36 General, Sec. 22-1 Construction code appeals committee Construction and property maintenance code 37 board of appeals. 38 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 39 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article III - Building Code, Section 22-61 - Adopted, 40 Subsection (b) - International Residential Code Adopted, Section R112 - Board of Appeals of the Dover 41 Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the blue text, as follows: 42 SECTION R112 BOARD OF APPEALS See Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I 43 - In General, Sec. 22-1 Construction code appeals committee Construction and property maintenance 44 code board of appeals. 45 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 46 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VII - Property Maintenance Code, Section 47 22-221 - Adopted, Subsection (a), Section 111 - Means of Appeal of the Dover Code be amended by 48 deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the blue text, as follows: 49 SECTION 111 MEANS OF APPEAL See Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VII 50 - Property Maintenance Code, Sec. 22-225 Property maintenance code board of appeals Article I - In 51 General, Sec. 22-1 Construction and property maintenance code board of appeals. 52 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 53 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VII - Property Maintenance Code, Section 54 22-225 - Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals of the Dover Code be amended by deleting it in its 55 entirety, as follows: 56 Sec. 22-225. - Property maintenance code board of appeals. 57 There shall be a board to be referred to as the "property maintenance code board of appeals," 58 consisting of three members, one of whom shall be the city manager, one a resident generally selected 59 as a representative of homeowners, and one representative of the local real estate industry association. 60 The members shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation of a voting majority of the city 61 council at its annual meeting. Decisions of the board shall be final. 62 (Code 1981, § 10-5; Ord. of 7-10-1989; Ord. of 4-10-2000) 63 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 64 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article XII - Vacant Buildings, Section 22-406 - 65 Appeals of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the blue 66 text, as follows:

Proposed Ordinance #2016-19 - Chapter 22 - Building and Building Regulations; Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection; and Chapter 50 - Floods Page 3 67 Sec. 22-406. - Appeals of the 25 percent over market rate. 68 (a) Any appeal of the building inspector's decision must be made in writing within 30 days of the 69 decision. The appeal would be heard by the property maintenance code board of appeals. 70 (b) An appeal of the 25 percent over market rate (from the actively for sale or lease definition) can be 71 considered through an appraisal using accepted appraisal standards to determine market rate. The owner has 72 the option of asking the city tax assessor to perform the appraisal or having one performed (using accepted 73 appraisal standards) at their own expense. 74 (Ord. of 6-26-2006; Ord. No. 2013-03, 3-11-2013) 75 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 76 That Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article III - Fire Codes, Section 46-125 - Construction 77 Code Appeals Committee of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and 78 inserting the blue text, as follows: 79 Sec. 46-125. - Construction code appeals committee Appeal; hearing. 80 (a) Composition; appointment. There shall be a committee to be referred to as the "construction 81 code appeals committee," consisting of three members, one of whom shall be the city manager and 82 the other two being elected city officials. The city officials shall be appointed by the city council 83 president at its annual meeting. 84 (b) Appeal; hearing. Whenever any person is aggrieved by a decision of the fire marshal with respect 85 to the provisions of this chapter, it is the right of that person to appeal to the construction code appeals 86 committee construction and property maintenance code board of appeals, as provided for in Chapter 87 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I - In General, Section 22-1 - Construction and 88 property maintenance code board of appeals. Such appeal must be filed, in writing, within 30 days after 89 the determination by the fire marshal. Upon receipt of such appeal, the construction code appeals 90 committee construction and property maintenance code board of appeals shall set a time and place, in 91 not less than ten or more than 30 days, for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Notice of the time and place 92 of the hearing of the appeal shall be given to all parties, at which time they may appear and be heard. The 93 determination by the construction code appeals committee construction and property maintenance code 94 board of appeals shall be final in all cases. 95 (Code 1981, § 7-60; Ord. of 5-10-1982; Ord. of 11-22-1993) 96 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 97 That Chapter 50 - Floods, Article IV - Variances, Section 50-46 - Variances of the Dover Code be amended 98 by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the blue text, as follows: 99 Sec. 50-46. - Variances. 100 The City of Dover Construction Code Appeals Committee construction and property maintenance code 101 board of appeals, as provided for in Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I - In

Proposed Ordinance #2016-19 - Chapter 22 - Building and Building Regulations; Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection; and Chapter 50 - Floods Page 4 102 General, Section 22-1 - Construction and property maintenance code board of appeals, shall have the 103 power to authorize, in specific cases, such variances from the requirements of these regulations and the flood 104 load and flood load and flood-resistant construction of the building code, not inconsistent with federal 105 regulations, as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions of the lot or 106 parcel, a literal enforcement of the provisions of these regulations would result in unnecessary hardship. 107 (1) Application for a variance. 108 a. Any owner, or agent thereof, of property for which a variance is sought shall submit an 109 application for a variance to the floodplain administrator. 110 b. At a minimum, such application shall contain the following information: Name, address, and 111 telephone number of the applicant; legal description of the property; parcel map; description 112 of the existing use; description of the proposed use; location of the floodplain; description 113 of the variance sought; and reason for the variance request. Each variance application shall 114 specifically address each of the considerations in section 50-46(2) and the limitations and 115 conditions of section 50-46(3). 116 (2) Considerations for variances. In considering variance applications, the City of Dover Construction 117 Code Appeals Committee construction and property maintenance code board of appeals shall 118 consider and make findings of fact on all evaluations, all relevant factors, requirements specified in 119 other sections of these regulations, and the following factors: 120 a. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others. 121 b. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage. 122 c. The susceptibility of the proposed development and its contents (if applicable) to flood 123 damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. 124 d. The importance of the services provided by the proposed development to the community. 125 e. The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to, or are 126 subject to less, flooding or erosion damage. 127 f. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable, or if the facility is a 128 functionally dependent use. 129 g. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development. 130 h. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan for that area. 131 i. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 132 j. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood 133 waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site. 134 k. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including 135 maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and 136 water systems, and streets and bridges. 137 (3) Limitations for variances. 138 a. An affirmative decision on a variance request shall only be issued upon: 139 1. A showing of good and sufficient cause. A "good and sufficient" cause is one that 140 deals solely with the physical characteristics of the property and cannot be based on 141 the character of the planned construction or substantial improvement, the personal

Proposed Ordinance #2016-19 - Chapter 22 - Building and Building Regulations; Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection; and Chapter 50 - Floods Page 5 142 characteristics of the owner or inhabitants, or local provisions that regulate standards 143 other than health and public safety standards. 144 2. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional 145 hardship due to the physical characteristics of the property. 146 3. Increased cost or inconvenience of meeting the requirements of these regulations 147 does not constitute an exceptional hardship to the applicant. 148 4. A determination that the granting of a variance for development within any 149 designated floodway, or special flood hazard area with base flood elevations but no 150 floodway, will not result in increased flood heights beyond that which is allowed in 151 these regulations. 152 5. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in additional threats to 153 public safety; extraordinary public expense, nuisances, fraud on or victimization of 154 the public, or conflict with existing local laws. 155 6. A determination that the structure or other development is protected by methods to 156 minimize flood damages. 157 7. A determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood 158 hazard, to afford relief. 159 b. Upon consideration of the individual circumstances, the limitations and conditions, and the 160 purposes of these regulations, the City of Dover Construction Code Appeals Committee 161 construction and property maintenance code board of appeals may attach such 162 conditions to variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of these regulations. 163 c. The City of Dover Construction Code Appeals Committee construction and property 164 maintenance code board of appeals shall notify any applicant in writing to whom a 165 variance is granted for a building or structure with a lowest floor elevation below the base 166 flood elevation that the variance is to the floodplain management requirements only, and that 167 the cost of federal flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk. 168 (Ord. No. 2014-09, 6-9-2014) 169 ADOPTED: * 170 S:\ORDINANCES\2016\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2016-19 CONSOLIDATION OF PROPERTY MAINTENANCE & CONTRUCTION CODE BOARDS OF APPEAL\Proposed Ordinance #2016-19 Amending 171 Ch 22; Ch 46; and Ch 50 with CCW-LF&A#1-Attachment to 07-26-2016 CCW minutes.wpd 172 SYNOPSIS 173 The proposed ordinance would consolidate the Construction Code Appeals Committee and 174 the Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals. This consolidation will put appeals 175 related to Chapters 22, 46, and 50 under one committee consisting of five members instead 176 of three and change the composition of the members by replacing the City Manager 177 with an elected City official. The plan is to create the Construction and Property 178 Maintenance Code Board of Appeals with the sitting members of the existing groups. The 179 appointments will continued to be shared by the Mayor and Council President. 180 (SPONSORS: COLE, HUTCHISON, AND NEIL) 181 Actions History 182 07/26/2016 - Introduction - Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee

Monthly Report June 2016 Office of City Assessor

ASSESSOR’S REPORT Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of June 2015/2016 the Month of June 2015/2016 26 28 30 $100 30 23 Thousands 25 $56 $50 20 14 15 12 $50 $16 $32 15 10 2015 $2 $0 $0 $9 5 0 1 0 2015 0 $0 2016 2016 First Time Buyer for the Month June 2015/2016 Realty of June 2015/2016 PropertySales in Dollars Received Prior to Recording 26 30 23 $4 $3 $3 Res. Non‐First $4 $2 $2 Millions 20 14 15 $3 Time Buyers $2 $0 $1 $1 $0 2015 10 Res. First Time $0 Buyers 2016 0 2015 2016 Major Updates April ‐16 May ‐ 16 June‐ 16 Assessment Change $1,815,900 $1,256,000 $4,247,400 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 24 $3,515,200 $3,785,685 0.93 1.09 1

ASSESSOR’S REPORT Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised. Points of Interest Scanning & Filing ‐ All new deeds are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All appeal documents and correspondence are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All old property record cards are being scanned and indexed into Fortis. Assessor’s Office ‐ Preparing for 2016 Tax billing. 2

JUL 22, 2016 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 1 02:33 PM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR ED05-066.00-01-14.00 3 R10 1889 KENTON RD 14 2015 1 1255 C+ AV 181,300 21-JUN-16 184,000 .99 ED05-067.07-01-14.00 10 R10 5 MISHOE ST 1 14 2007 1 1120 C FR 110,200 28-JUN-16 157,000 .70 ED05-067.09-01-31.00 18 R10 221 MERION RD 1 16 1976 1 1840 C AV 152,200 17-JUN-16 212,000 .72 ED05-067.11-01-18.00 10 R10 5 TERRY CIR 1 5 1970 2 2492 C AV 179,300 24-JUN-16 130,000 1.38 ED05-067.12-03-33.00 8 R10 971 SILVER LAKE DR 1 13 1987 2 1200 B GD 147,200 29-JUN-16 145,500 1.01 ED05-067.12-04-49.00 8 R0 45 REPRESENTATIVE LN 13 2016 2 2643 B- AV 205,600 15-JUN-16 203,025 1.01 ED05-067.17-04-60.00 3 R10 125 SWEETGUM DR 1 6 1993 2 1842 B- GD 179,400 03-JUN-16 205,000 .88 ED05-067.20-03-13.00 9 R10 329 N NEW ST 1 1 1925 2 2415 C AV 121,700 21-JUN-16 90,000 1.35 ED05-068.09-02-28.00 13 R10 12 BACON CT 1 5 1974 2 1723 C AV 143,400 28-JUN-16 167,310 .86 ED05-068.14-03-28.00 13 R10 1245 HARRISON DR 1 5 1964 2 1524 C+ AV 122,100 14-JUN-16 164,900 .74 ED05-068.14-04-02.00 7 R10 163 SPRUANCE RD 1 13 1985 2 1100 C- FR 63,200 22-JUN-16 69,000 .92 ED05-068.18-02-80.01 7 R10 50 N HALSEY RD 1 14 2005 1 1316 C AV 129,700 03-JUN-16 157,750 .82 ED05-068.19-01-39.00 7 R10 1331 N LITTLE CREEK RD 1 14 1958 1 1164 C FR 116,300 17-JUN-16 96,000 1.21 ED05-068.20-01-16.00 14 R10 14 NICHOLAS DR 1 8 2006 1 1244 C+ GD 160,200 30-JUN-16 175,000 .92 ED05-068.20-01-18.00 14 R10 18 NICHOLAS DR 1 8 2006 2 1814 C+ GD 184,000 24-JUN-16 201,900 .91 ED05-076.08-02-06.00 9 R10 530 MARY ST 14 2015 1 1512 C+ AV 144,200 17-JUN-16 159,000 .91 ED05-076.12-01-20.00 2 R10 810 FOREST ST 1 1 1947 1 1008 C FR 95,100 02-JUN-16 33,500 2.84 ED05-076.20-01-05.00 5 R10 846 WESTVIEW TER 1 16 1959 1 1678 C+ AV 154,300 10-JUN-16 173,900 .89 ED05-076.20-01-48.00 5 R10 944 SHANK RD 1 16 1960 1 1626 C+ AV 149,200 15-JUN-16 159,900 .93 ED05-077.06-01-36.00 8 R10 534 GREENHILL RD 1 1 1941 2 1741 B- AV 143,600 17-JUN-16 195,000 .74 ED05-077.06-01-65.00 8 R10 512 E LOOCKERMAN ST 1 14 1980 1 1344 C FR 149,500 17-JUN-16 154,000 .97 ED05-077.11-02-24.00 6 R10 644 CRAWFORD AVE 1 14 1967 1 1130 C AV 132,600 15-JUN-16 167,000 .79 ED05-077.17-05-61.00 4 R10 19 ROOSEVELT AVE 1 5 1940 2 1874 C AV 133,000 27-JUN-16 145,000 .92 ED05-085.06-01-04.00 11 R10 15 RIVERSIDE RD 1 5 2005 2 1843 B AV 217,900 17-JUN-16 240,000 .91

CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT June 2016

CUSTOMER SERVICE FY 2016 Major Program Updates Jun 2016 Jun 2015 Difference Year-to-Date Number of Customers Served 20,308 20,156 152 252,578 Final Bills 735 757 (22) 8,157 Estimated Bills 202 205 (3) 2,689 Penalties Posted $ 5,638 $ 14,287 (8,649) $ 149,723 Extensions of Credit - Amount Extended $ 22,690 $ 92,850 (70,160) $ 922,764 Balance Transfers $ 3,631 $ 2,488 1,142 $ 236,115 Utility Collections $ 20,111 $ 41,127 (21,016) $ 439,124 Special Assessments $ - $ - - $ - Miscellaneous Billings $ 67,099 $ 100,085 (32,987) $ 1,435,556 Total Taxes Collected $ - $ 64,865 (64,865) Taxes Outstanding $ 144,711 $ 306,873 (162,161) Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Number of Customers Served 19,452 20,051 22,294 20,308 Final Bills 625 563 606 735 Estimated Reads 238 184 200 202 Penalties Applied $8,193.25 $7,061.31 $5,162.58 $5,638.09 Work Orders Written-Service Request 1,659 1,507 1,646 2,002 Extension of Credit 76 111 127 122 Extensions of Credit-Amount Extended $23,013.26 $27,830.28 $28,266.35 $22,690.32 Transfers $51,870.75 $51,870.75 $5,529.52 $3,630.52 Utility Collections $26,753.27 $20,709.78 $27,157.42 $20,110.65 Miscellaneous Bills $86,380.64 $124,669.21 $127,835.40 $67,098.56 Returned Checks $12,926.29 $11,899.12 $9,973.08 $9,581.80 Returned Item Fee $1,480.00 $1,980.00 $720.00 $2,400.00 Drive-up Window 2,438 2,321 2,097 2,553 Walk-in Counter 4,864 4,393 4,744 4,136 Payments by Mail 14,615 12,922 14,893 13,155 Credit Card Payments 179 166 189 182 Bank Drafts 2,081 1,780 1,947 1,810 Transfer Tax Received $ 78,922.28 $60,960.32 $116,930.09 $110,811.27 City Manager's Monthly Report 1

HUMAN RESOURCES Category June July August Sept Oct Dec Jan Feb March April May June Total 15 16 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 Caucasian* 290 291 290 296 300 298 297 296 299 301 302 301 N/A Minorities* 63 64 64 67 66 67 66 67 68 67 70 70 N/A Hired 3 8 2 12 1 3 0 2 9 3 3 3 55 Terminated/Resigned/ 4 4 1 4 1 5 2 2 5 2 0 4 34 Retired/Other Transferred/Promoted 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 0 1 13 Jobs Posted 2 1 7 9 4 3 3 2 5 10 2 3 50 Workers Comp. 2 0 4 6 7 1 3 0 1 4 2 0 32 Injuries Workers Comp. 115 260 42 24 211 10 0 166 144 73 0 32 1276 Hours Insurance Claims 2 0 3 1 3 1 5 4 5 1 4 2 31 339 Full-time Employees: 33 Part-time Employees: (*4 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 15 Library, 3 Customer Service, 1 Central Services, 9 Police Department) Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members. ** August 2015 Pitts Center Number reduced to 4 to reflect error in July 2015 Turnover Statistics 2010 2011 2012* 2013 * 2014 2015 2016 Total Turnover % 5.57 6.75 11.00 10.91 6.02 11.77 4.08 Termination Turnover % 0.27 1.08 0.29 1.47 .57 .28 -- Resignation Turnover % 2.12 4.05 5.21 5.01 2.29 7.56 2.45 Retirement Turnover % 3.18 1.62 5.50 4.42 3.15 4.20 .82 * Healthcare cost sharing implemented ** Healthcare cost sharing implemented for DOE Unfilled/Open Positions June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 By Department Electric 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 3 Public Works 16 18 17 16 16 14 12 13 14 12 10 10 12 Police 3 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 1 2 All Other Depart- 6 11 9.5 7.5 7 8.5 10 12 10.5 8 7 7 8 ments Totals 27 35 33.5 26.5 27 27.5 27 30 30.5 29 26 23 25 ² The following has been updated to reflected the Fiscal 2015-16 Budget Electric: Electric Generation Superintendent, Transmission and Distribution Coordinator, Key Accounts Representative Public Works: Utility Maintenance Mechanic II/Wastewater; Utility Maintenance Mechanic I; Motor Equipment Operator I (Sanitation); Motor Eq uipment Operator I (Streets); Gardener II (Grounds); (2) Motor Equipment I Water/wastewater; Public Works Operations Manager; Motor Equipment Operator II (Grounds); Motor Equipment Operator II (Water/wastewater); Crew Leader (Grounds); Environmental Scientist Police: Building Maintenance Craftsperson, Police Officer All Other Departments: Customer Service Clerk, Collections (Part-time), (1) Library Clerk I (part-time), Administrative Assistant (Information Technology-part- time); Accountant I, Finance (part-time), AS400/System Operator (Information Technology), Fire Dispatcher; Library Assistant (In-House); Library Clerk II (In- House); Fire Marshall; Inspector I (Code Enforcement) City Manager's Monthly Report 2

HUMAN RESOURCES City Manager's Monthly Report 3

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Service Requests Resolved Programming Requests Completed 100 35 88 90 30 30 77 80 74 74 71 70 66 25 22 23 62 58 56 60 52 52 20 18 16 17 50 14 15 13 13 40 11 31 27 9 30 10 7 20 4 5 10 0 0 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Page Views - City of Dover Web Page 40,000 35,000 30,000 Pages Viewed 25,000 20,000 32,737 33,605 33,344 34,436 34,652 31,824 15,000 28,802 28,730 30,073 27,473 30,300 10,000 26,032 26,071 5,000 0 Jun -15 Jul-1 5 Aug -1 5 Sep -1 5 Oct-1 5 Nov-1 5 Dec-1 5 Jan -16 Fe b-1 Ma6 r-1 6 Apr-1 Ma6 y-16 Jun -16 Current Performance Indicators Last Month Same Month Month Last Year iSeries Availability 100% 100% 100% Server Availability 100% 100% 100% AS/400 Connections (concurrent/authorized users) N/A N/A N/A PCs Supported 362 360 372 Scheduled PCs Replaced - - - Servers Supported 35 35 30 People Trained 12 7 11 Availability Statistics based on 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM Monday—Friday City Manager's Monthly Report 4

LIBRARY Reference Transactions June 2016 Adult 1700 Teen 385 Children 625 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Circulation JUNE 16 JUNE 15 Dover residents 21,273 22,012 Ebooks 2,527 2,224 Kent residents* 11,289 14,061 Non-county residents 1,765 2,013 Registrations Dover residents 293 362 Kent residents* 60 37 Non-county residents 5 10 Other Visiting Patrons 31,047 28,056 Meeting Room Usage 1,256 1,381 Photocopier Usage 809 1,019 Computer Printing Usage 3,456 2,506 Computer Users 4,518 4,566 Wireless Computer Users 1,246 2,000 Holds (Total) 7,348 7,195 City Manager's Monthly Report 5

PUBLIC WORKS Construction Inspection Subdivisions Site Development The following required inspection services The following required inspection services Seskinore Court Dover Dental Chestnut Groove Dover High School Clearview Meadows Kent County Recreation Center / Boys and Girls Club Eden Hill Winner Ford Nottingham Meadows 365 North DuPont Hwy (Mission Bbq) Senators Lake Dover Town Center (Old Walmart Renovation) Garrison Oak Technical Park Capital Commons (Old Kmart Renovation) Dover Volkswagen Leander Lakes Eden Hill Commercial Center Sanitation City Manager's Monthly Report 6

JUNE 16 FYTD 16 JUNE 15 FYTD 15 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 181 2,072 181 2,159 Total Tonnage to DSWA 1,082.74 11,718.53 1,108.59 14,675.91 90-Gallon Containers Delivered 65 681 23 358 300-Gallon Containers Delivered 0 0 0 38 Total Man Hours-containers Delivered 34 221 22 392 CURBSIDE RECYCLING TOTAL # OF TOTAL # OF STATS HOUSEHOLDS ACCOUNTS WEIGHT/LBS AVE. LBS. COLLECTED . June 2016 20,213 9,201 323,320 16.00 Streets JUNE 16 FYTD 16 JUNE 15 FYTD 15 Signed Installed 0 92 10 338 Signs Repaired 6 104 3 134 Curbs Painted Yellow (feet) 2,755 19,411 55 15,957 New Post Installed 6 90 3 46 Storm Catch Basins Repaired 10 24 4 25 Storm Catch Basin Repairing (Hrs.) 29 101 48 209 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned 59 482 3 218 Storm Catch Basins Cleaning (Hrs.) 14 96 6 127 Hot Mix Patching (Tons) 5 20 14 20.00 Hot Mix Patching (Hrs.) 8 20 112 185 Cold Mix Patching Hrs.) 13.5 117 89 355 Concrete Work (Hrs) 26 117 24 188 Concrete Patching (Cubic Yards) 2.36 11 0 0 Ditch Work (Hrs). 0 28 0 39 Street and Alley Maintenance (Hrs) 9 97 20 727 Street Sweeping (Miles) 1,726 13,221 1,626 10,975 Street Sweeping (Cubic Yards) 98 1,043 318 2,566 Leaves Collected (Cubic Yards) 0.0 11,378 0 8,676 Leaf Collection (Miles) 0 7,099 0 4,796 GROUNDS Work Orders Total Work Orders = 7 General = 6 Arborist = 1 Arborist Crew June 2016 June 2015 Trees Trimmed 20 3 Trees Removed 3 22 Stumps Removed 2 0 Root Pruning 0 0 City Manager's Monthly Report 7

Beautification Crew  Hung baskets along W Loockerman Street  Planted flowers in stationary pots  Planted flowers in beds at Kings Hwy, the Plaza, Memorial Bed, White Oak, Electric Admin, Route 8 Point Mowing Crews  Mowed, trimmed, and edged designated mowing sites  Sprayed weeds Athletic Field Maintenance .  Lined athletic fields  Filled, dragged, and prepped infields Litter Removal Litter person has been doing an outstanding job with emptying trash cans and picking up litter Helped with prepping beds Miscellaneous Cleaned up and mowed City owned properties on S New Street GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) City Manager's Office Used data from the Tax Assessors office to create a layer of residential structures built in 1978 or earlier. Created a 30"x40" map of all the structures for an AC/Lead Disposal program. Information Technology Reviewed and modified frequently asked questions area for website Multiple Upgraded multiple computers to ArcGIS 10.4 Planning Created and printed maps for Plan4Health Charrette Planning & Inspections Created a buffer layer of 1500 ft around the Restoring Central Dover boundary. Created a 24"x36" map of both areas. Provided to requester as a PDF. Planning & Inspections Resized the Plan4Health Maps to 1:300 scale and created a new map of the “Area of Concentration”. Provided both maps as PDFs. Public Works Created GeoForm for monthly additions and subtractions of recycling customers Public Works Updated multiple feature classes and set privilages Public Works Created water, sanitary sewer & storm sewer plan maps for the areas around Kings Highway and Route 13. Public Works Created eleven 8.5"x11" maps of the locations proposed to be added to the grass maintenance contract. Provided the maps in PDF form to requester. Public Works Created three 30"x40" maps of the water, sanitary sewer & storm sewer for the area around Wild Meadows and Persimmon Park Place. Provided PDF copies to requester. City Manager's Monthly Report 8

Public Works Created a CIP feature class and associate Web Application FLEET AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Fleet Maintenance PM Work Orders Completed: 27 Number of Tire Repairs: 7 Number of Road Repairs: 9 Other Work Orders: 81 Repair Hours: 264 Road Repair Hours: 7 Total Work Orders: 108 Fabrication Hours: 28 Misc. Hours: 11.5 PM Hours: 105 Major Program Updates June June MEASURE 2016 2015 DIFFERENCE Fleet Maintenance - Scheduled Preventative Maintenance 6 out of 26 1 out of 26 + 19.23% appointments being kept (Quantity 23.08 % 3.85% and Percentage) Facilities Maintenance Facilities - Routine work orders 35 out of 35 20 out of 23 completed within 5 days (Quantity + 13.04% 100 % 86.96 % and Percentage) Facilities - Emergency work orders 0 out of 0 6 out of 6 completed within 2 days (Quantity 0% 100 % 100 % and Percentage) Water/Wastewater Divisions May 15 June 15 July 15 Aug 15 Sept 15 Oct 15 Nov 15 159,582,000 162,426,000 180,682,000 182,622,000 168,970,000 145,299,000 121,642,000 Total Water Prod. 121,826,000 161,697,000 154,332,000 171,100,000 156,671,000 144,888,000 115,248,000 Billed Consumpt. Total Flow to County 143,139,000 178,294,000 143,028,000 160,434,000 126.593,000 132,777,000 138,535,000 City Readings 141,900,215 151,433,568 136,587,837 122,281,550 147,211,292 124,737,856 119,588,481 Dec 15 Jan 16 Feb 16 March 16 April 16 May 16 June 16 Total Water Prod. 133,437,000 137,229,000 137,059,000 148,722,000 159,483,000 146,101,000 172,331,000 Billed Consumpt. 116,923,000 118,062,000 129,346,000 127,945,000 141,806,000 125,105,000 147,393,000 Total Flow to County 126,640,000 120,192,000 187,336,000 132,852,000 129,035,000 161,418,000 129,309,000 City Manager's Monthly Report 9

City Readings 144,997,084 131,263,852 152,102,705 195,225,608 148,682,761 157,406,385 158,898,575 ENGINEERING SUMMARY Major Program Updates JUNE 16 JUNE 15 DIFF FY16 YTD FY15 YTD State and Federal Violations 0 violations 0 violations - - - Water Quality Complaints 8 5 +3 102 111 Plan Review Completed 17 plans 8 Plans +9 104 110 Within 30 days of Submission 100% 100% OPERATIONAL SUMMARY Task JUNE 16 JUNE 15 CURRENT FY Water Production - Daily Average 5,744,367 5,414,200 1,833,577,000 Average Field Response Time (goal is <30 minutes) 17.87 18.45 17.51 Water Mains Repaired 1 2 15 Water Service Lines Repaired 4 3 18 Wastewater Mains Repaired 3 1 9 Wastewater Service Lines Repaired 0 0 6 Sewer Lines Flushed - linear feet 71,119 131,496 682,770 Sewer Mains Videoed -linear feet 1,454 0 13,759 Total Fire Hydrants in Service 1,820 1,820 1,820 Total Water Meters in City Distribution System 14,440 14,212 14,440 City Manager's Monthly Report 10

ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT System Peak Total System Load # of Number Customers Outages customers outages Gained June 15 155.6 June 15 68,704 June 15 11 1385 June 15 6 July 15 158.5 July 15 76,060 July 15 9 405 July 15 14 Aug 15 148.0 Aug 15 74,133 Aug 15 6 122 Aug 15 9 Sept 15 148.0 Sept 15 66,383 Sept 15 9 334 Sept 15 5 Oct 15 101.3 Oct 15 55,011 Oct 15 1 1 Oct 15 9 Nov 15 95.5 Nov 15 53,746 Nov 15 5 2629 Nov 15 61 Dec 15 94.64 Dec 15 56,155 Dec 15 2 17 Dec 15 20 Jan 16 116.96 Jan 16 62,563 Jan 16 5 245 Jan 16 21 Feb 16 110.15 Feb 16 57,888 Feb 16 2 106 Feb 16 14 Mar 16 98.93 Mar 16 55,967 Mar 16 7 353 Mar 16 16 Apr 16 100.37 Apr 16 53,202 Apr 16 5 672 Apr 16 29 May 16 128.16 May 16 56,586 May 16 2 206 May 16 13 June 16 133.59 June 16 65,414 601 June 16 14 June 16 53 Electric Monthly Outage Report The annual outage goal will be less than 295 minutes per customer, which is a Delaware Standard. This will be measured by calculating the System Average Interruption Duration Index. FY 16 YTD FY 15 FY 14 24.98 45.76 67.9 Controllable Outages Average Response Time Annual goal is less than 40 Goal is less than 30 minutes Month Year-to-date Month Year-to-date 5 25 31.92 Minutes 32.95 Minutes PROGRAM UPDATES JUNE 16 JUNE 15 FY16 YTD Tree Trimming 337 574 3795 Number of Oil Releases 1 2 6 Lost Time Accidents – All Electric Utility Divisions 0 0 0 New Services 53 6 264 Major Goals Completed in the Past Two Months City Manager's Monthly Report 11

June 2016 Electric (EE Capitol Improvement Projects (CIP) S:\Shared Data\Electric Department Bi Weekly Meetings\Capital Improvement Projects Status\2016 Project Number Description Update EE1500 69kV Rebuild Progress: In discussion about possible relocation of some poles for irrigation | (Horsepond to Received permit Long Point) Schedule: FY15 is for Design |FY16 budget is for construction EE1509 West Dover Progress: Poles are in| 1 phase is moved. Need to rework replacing poles and UG Connector - State of DE Schedule: OH Next week Tuesday EE1513 Town Pointe Progress: 10% Complete on setting TXs and peds Distribution Feeders Schedule: In progress EE1524 Lenders Lake Progress: Phase I complete except for meter install Apartments Schedule: Phase I complete except for meter install EE1537 Kirby & Progress: Primary Design complete | Waiting for primary fee payment Holloway Restaurant Schedule: Waiting on customer EE1607 Horsepond URD Progress: Complete Distribution Feeder Schedule: Complete EE1636 Clearview Progress: Complete except for meter install Meadows Phase 4 Schedule: Complete except for meter install EE1640 Round Barn Progress: Installing 480 volt service for new grain elevator | Waiting on customer Farm Schedule: Waiting on customer EE1643 Winner Progress: New service to new show room |Design complete | Waiting on pipe Volkswagen install Schedule: Primary fee paid, waiting customer go-ahead EE1644 Retreat Pump Progress: Station upgrade from 120/240 Volt to 208Y/120 volt | Design completed Station and waiting on public works | Contracts are awarded vault | 8-12 weeks lead time Renovation Schedule: Waiting on customer. Should start soon EE1629 Tall Pines Progress: Seeing movement, waiting customer go-ahead Schedule: Waiting on customer EE1648 Blue Hen - UG Progress: Met with customer and received updated drawings | Waiting on payment | Starting foundations Schedule: In progress EE1520 69Kv Cable Progress: Work to begin this fiscal year | In planning stages | May push out to Replacement FY18 North St. Schedule: Planning stages Substation EE1650 Progress: Preliminary design | waiting on finance City Manager's Monthly Report 12

Live Front with Schedule: Waiting on finance Dual TX Replacement EE1509 West Dover Progress: Poles are in| 1 phase is moved. Need to rework replacing poles and UG Connector Schedule: OH Next week Tuesday EE1603 Horsepond to Progress: Received permit | 100% complete DAFB, 69 Insulator Install Schedule: Complete EE1658 Central Progress: Need to relocate ped and lights at entrance Delaware Islamic Society Schedule: Waiting on customer EE1627 Dover East Progress: Start live front transformer swap FY16 | Shut down is scheduled. Schedule: UG crews start soon EE1500 69kV Rebuild Progress: In discussion about possible relocation of some poles for irrigation | (Horsepond to Received permit Long Point) Cartanza Schedule: FY15 is for Design |FY16 budget is for construction EE1657 Creekstone 2 Progress: Project request submitted | Primary request in work Schedule: Waiting on customer EE1619 Route 8 - Mifflin Progress: Work to begin this fiscal year | Might be night bore | Need to complete Road design Schedule: FY17 complete EE1617 Oak Grove Progress: Work to begin this fiscal year | Preliminary design completed | Permit trailer park received, boring start 31st Schedule: In progress EE1652 New Street Progress: | Standard poles are set | Waiting for the heads to come in (ETD Lights beginning of Jun?) Schedule: In progress EE1610 Fraizer 900 Progress: 85% complete | (11) OH sets are installed | Waiting on (2) UG sets to be Circuit Fault delivered from vendor Indicators Schedule: Waiting on UG arrival from vendor City Manager's Monthly Report 13

City Manager's Monthly Report 14

Monthly Management Committee Update June 2016 Prepared By: Arline Holloway Client Services Manager Phone: 904-360-1347 Email: aholloway@teainc.org Date: August 1, 2016 City Manager's Monthly Report 15

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 1 Power Supply Summary 1 Supply Source Summary 2 Supply Variance 2 Generation Summary 3 Emissions Summary 5 Risk Management Summary 9 II. Budget Report 10 III. Operations Management 13 Operations Summary 13 IV. Appendix: PJM Invoice 27 City Manager's Monthly Report 16

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY POWER SUPPLY SUMMARY Power Supply Costs FY2015-16 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Budget Actual Overall Power Supply costs were $769,967 below budget, predominantly driven by bearish PJM-Energy, Congestion and Losses and lower PJM-ARR Transmission and Fees. PJM Energy, Congestion and Losses for the month totaled $65,857. Dover’s budgeted cost for all power supply (capacity AND energy) was $64.80/MWh. The actual cost of all power supply (capacity AND energy) was $56.69/MWh. The actual cost of energy alone was $36.62/MWh as opposed to a budgeted energy cost of $42.82. Dover’s total load was 66,087 MWh versus a forecasted load of 69,700 MWh. Hedge purchases totaled 54,928 MWh, which was 83% of the actual load. The budgeted hedge purchase totaled 40,768 MWh, which was 58% of the budgeted load. Dover’s planned energy purchase from the SunPark solar installation was 2,328 MWhs. Dover’s actual energy purchase from the SunPark installation was 2,227 MWhs. Dover’s power purchases from hedge transactions totaled $2,055,414. Purchases from PJM (energy and fees) totaled $1,278,523. PJM Revenue (Generation Credits) totaled $(683,353).1 The Grand Total owed to PJM for the month of June $595,170. 1PJM Revenue (RPM Revenue) stepped down for the month of June. The new effective RPM Auction pricing point of $119.13 (VS. 167.46). The 2016-2017 pricing point values are effective from June 1, 2016 thru May 31, 2017. City Manager's Monthly Report 17

Supply Source Summary June 2016 Power Supply Sources Dover SunPark 3% PJM Purchases 14% Hedge Purchases 83% Hedge Purchases PJM Purchases Dover SunPark Supply Variance City Manager's Monthly Report 18

GENERATION SUMMARY Generation Revenue FY2015-16 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $- Jul-15 Apr-16 Jun-16 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 May-16 $(100,000) Budget Actual Net Generation Revenue for the month of April was $106,428 versus a budget of $298,600. City Manager's Monthly Report 19

Generation Breakdown: City of Dover Monthly Wholesale Generation Formula June 2016 Net Generation 832.54 D Production Margin PJM - Generation Economic and Reliability Dispatch $ 23,654.66 A Natural Gas & Oil Consumption Purchases for Generation $ (30,170.00) Natural Gas Transport $ (8,366.88) Eastern Shore Cashout $ (1,418.83) Oil Consumption $ - Subtotal: Natural Gas & Oil Consumption $ (39,955.70) B Gross Production Margin $ (16,301.04) C = (A + B) $/MWh Generation Production Gross Margin $ (19.58) E = (C/D) PJM - Capacity Generation Capacity Credit $ 612,326.40 Reactive Supply and Transmission Losses $ 47,372.40 Subtotal: PJM - Capacity $ 659,698.80 F All in Generation Margin All in Generation Margin Total $ 643,397.76 (G = C + F) City Manager's Monthly Report 20

EMISSIONS SUMMARY Emissions Allowance and Solar Renewable Energy Summary through June 30, 2016 The reinstated Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) replaced the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) beginning January 1, 2015. The State of Delaware was included in the CAIR footprint but is not included in the CSAPR footprint. The separate Clean Air Act acid rain deposition control program (CAA Title IV) which governs SO2 national allowance trading program remains in effect for Dover. Beginning with the January 2015 report, TEA no longer includes a CAIR summary. It will continue to report on Dover’s Clean Air Act Title IV SO2 allowances. Market liquidity for Title IV SO2 allowances is very low, with few transactions occurring. The following table shows estimated values for Dover’s banked allowances, based on a market price assessment published by SNL Energy. Market Value for Clean Air Act Title IV Allowances Commodity $/Ton2 Tons Market Value SO2 Allowances – Title IV $0.56 15,015 $8,408 Total $8,408 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative The State of Delaware is a participant in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The City of Dover must comply with RGGI by surrendering carbon dioxide (CO2) allowances pursuant to the State of Delaware’s laws (Title 7, Chapter 60, Sub-Title II-A). Dover had more than a sufficient number of RGGI allowances allocated to it to cover its requirements through the first compliance period (calendar years 2009-2011) and second compliance period (2012 – 2014). Any unused allowances are carried over (“banked”) for subsequent years. The table below includes Dover’s historical activities, and includes projections through 2020. Two projections are presented: (1) future annual emissions based on the average for 2009 – 2015, and (2) future annual emissions based on 2010 actual CO2 emissions which was the highest emissions year between 2009 and 2015. The table and chart indicate that Dover could run out of banked allowances as early as the end of 2018 under the high emissions scenario and by the end of 2020 under the average scenario. Therefore, Dover has initiated a program to participate in RGGI’s quarterly auctions to ensure it has adequate allowances in the future. 2 July 22, 2016 Daily Power Report by SNL Energy City Manager's Monthly Report 21

Dover, DE RGGI Allowance History and Forecast - June 2016 CO2 Tons EOY Historical CO2 Tons CO2 Tons Projected EOY Compliance CO2 Allowances Allocated CO2 Emitted & Projected EOY Allowance Emitted - Proj. Emitted - Proj. Balance Year (CY) Purchased Allowances Adjustments- Balance (High) Balance (Avg) (High) (Average) Historical 2009 62,184 5,796 56,388 2010 49,747 32,971 73,164 2011 37,311 17,746 92,729 2012 27,983 15,957 104,755 2013 24,818 10,230 119,343 2014 1,000 N/A 25,427 94,916 2015 14,000 N/A 15,188 90,075 2016 14,000 N/A 3,653 100,408 19,384 33,000 81,025 67,408 2017 N/A 19,384 33,000 61,641 34,408 2018 N/A 19,384 33,000 42,258 1,408 2019 N/A 19,384 33,000 22,874 -31,592 2020 N/A 19,384 33,000 3,491 -64,592 Dover RGGI Allowance History and Projection June 30, 2016 150,000 100,000 Includes the 14,000 allowances awarded in this year's Auction 31 and Auction 32 Tons of CO2 50,000 0 -50,000 -100,000 Historical CO2 Emissions Projected CO2 Emissions - Avg CO2 Tons Emitted - Proj. (High) EOY Historical Allowance Balance Projected EOY Balance (Average) Projected EOY Balance (High) City Manager's Monthly Report 22

In anticipation of needing additional RGGI allowances in the future, Dover has participated the six out of the last seven auctions and plans to continue to participate as required. The table below shows details for Dover’s allowance purchases for each of these previous Auctions. Dover’s RGGI Allowance Purchase History Quantity Of RGGI Auction Auction Clearing Allowances Number Auction Date Price ($/Ton) Awarded Total Cost 26 Dec 3, 2014 $5.21 1,000 $ 5,210 27 Mar 11, 2015 $5.41 6,000 32,460 28 June 3, 2015 $5.50 4,000 22,000 29 Sept 3, 2015 $6.02 4,000 24,080 30 Dec 2, 2015 $7.50 0 0 31 Mar 9, 2016 $5.25 8,000 42,000 32 Jun 1, 2016 $4.53 6,000 27,180 Totals 29,000 $152,930 As mentioned in previous reports, RGGI Futures prices dropped dramatically after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) and fell even further after the US Court of Appeals rescheduled oral arguments from June until September. Last month’s $1.00+ recovery bounce failed to break through the $6.00/ton level and allowance prices have since fallen to trade back below the June auction settlement price. Allowance pricing will be sensitive to future program cap limits (2.5% & 5.0% per year program cap reduction scenarios were discussed at the June stakeholder program review meeting). RGGI Futures - July 22, 2016 5.40 5.20 5.00 RGGI V13 4.80 $/Ton RGGI V14 4.60 RGGI V15 4.40 RGGI V16 RGGI V17 4.20 RGGI V18 4.00 7/1/2016 RGGI V19 8/1/2016 9/1/2016 10/1/2016 11/1/2016 12/1/2016 1/1/2017 2/1/2017 3/1/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 6/1/2017 7/1/2017 8/1/2017 9/1/2017 10/1/2017 11/1/2017 12/1/2017 3/1/2018 6/1/2018 9/1/2018 12/1/2018 12/1/2019 12/1/2020 The next RGGI auction will be held on September 7, 2016. The Cost Containment Reserve will be 10 Million tons with a CCR price of $8.00/ton. Dover submitted its intent to bid in the upcoming auction and will be required to post financial security by August 31, 2016. City Manager's Monthly Report 23

Based on the July 22, 2016 ICE price for the July 2016 futures price ($4.48/ton), the estimated market value of Dover’s existing 100,4083 ton RGGI allowance bank is $449,828. Renewable Energy Certificates Dover owns two photovoltaic systems totaling 15 kW, consisting of one 5 kW unit at the Utilities Administration Building and two 5 kW units at the McKee Run generating station. Dover also receives solar energy produced by the 10 MW Dover Sun Park which is owned by White Oak Solar Energy, LLC. In addition to all of the physical energy produced by the Sun Park, Dover receives 15% of Sun Park’s Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECS). Dover participates in the Delaware Municipal Electric Renewable Portfolio Standard (DMERPS) for compliance with the State of Delaware’s RPS laws applicable to municipal utilities. The first compliance period under DMERPS was for the 12 months ending May 2014 and the second compliance period was for the 12 months ending May 2015. Through the end of generation month May 2016, Dover had accumulated a net total of 7,918 SRECs from these renewable energy resources. This total includes SRECs reported in PJM’s GATS account and Bonus allowances for Sun Park labor. This total is reduced by 2,941 SREC transferred to DEMEC for surrender on October 3, 2014 for the first compliance period and 2,861 SRECs and 574 bonus SRECs for the second compliance period on November 9, 2015. Delaware periodically holds SRECs auctions; however, these auctions are for size tiers N1 – N3, E1 and E2. The Dover Sun Park is in the N4 tier for large-scale facilities. State-wide carve outs for Tier 4 have been fully subscribed, so there is not a market for tier T4 SRECs in Delaware. The nearest viable market for Dover’s SRECs is Pennsylvania. The most recent daily settlement prices for Pennsylvania SRECs from Bloomberg and SRECTrade are used in the table below. Net SREC PJM-GATS 10% Bonus Balance Market Balance SREC Vintage SRECs for Transferred to DEMEC After Market Clearing Before (June 1 – May 31) Sun Park for 2014/15 Transfer Value Price 2014/15 Labor(3) Compliance and Compliance Surrender GATs Bonus 2011/2012 $0.00 0 290.2 290.2 0 $0 2012/2013 $0.00 2,173 215.7 2,173 215.7 0 $0 2013/2014 $8.00 2,701 268 688 68.1 2,212.8 17,702 2014/2015 $12.00 2,685 266.3 0 0 2,951.3 35,416 2015/2016 $12.00 2,586 168 0 0 2,754.0 33,048 Totals 10,145 1,208.20 2,861 574 7,918.1 $86,166 TEA continues to recommend to Dover to retain these allowances for compliance with its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Additionally, Dover will need to acquire additional SRECs resources in future 3 Subject to verification from RGGI COATS account. 3 Note: Retroactive Bonus Allowances were not transferred within PJM’s GATS system, but were used to offset 2014/2015 compliance obligation. City Manager's Monthly Report 24

years. It is apparent that Dover’s portion of SRECs produced by White Oak Solar Energy Center will not be sufficient future years as the compliance requirements increase. DEMEC has indicated that it expects to have excess SRECs available for Dover’s compliance requirements. This and other alternatives will need to be evaluated in the near future. RISK MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Forward power prices in PJM have decreased. Blended Monthly Hedge Cost Change PY Ratio ($/MWh) ($/MWh) 2015-16 76% $ 39.33 ($1.97) 2016-17 67% $ 38.14 ($2.58) 2017-18 56% $ 37.90 ($2.57) 2018-19 88% $ 37.54 ($2.09) 2019-20 80% $ 35.10 ($2.12) 2020-21 56% $ 34.40 ($2.67) City Manager's Monthly Report 25

II. BUDGET REPORT Budget Actual Variance Jun-16 Jun-16 Gross Load 69,700 66,087 3,613 Power Supply Hedged Energy $1,605,400 $2,055,414 ($450,014) PJM - Energy, Congestion & Losses $1,076,000 65,857 $1,010,143 PJM - ARR, Transmission and Fees $650,000 349,927 $300,073 Dover SUN Park Energy $303,000 $298,849 $4,151 Dover SUN Park RECs $38,300 $30,647 $7,653 RECS (Solar and Non-Solar) $56,100 $0 $56,100 RGGI Credit Costs $43,700 $0 $43,700 Management Fees $83,000 $83,000 $0 PJM - Capacity UCAP Obligated Purchased $660,900 $862,739 ($201,839) Subtotal - Power Supply $4,516,400 $3,746,433 $769,967 Power Generation O&M Plant O&M $ 446,900 $ 536,970 $ (90,070) Subtotal Generation O&M $446,900 $ 536,970 ($90,070) Power Generation Production Margin PJM - Economic and reliability dispatch ($284,700) ($23,655) ($261,045) Fuel Costs - Natural Gas $194,600 $39,956 $154,644 Fuel Costs - Oil $0 $0 $0 Testing Costs $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Generation Production Margin ($90,100) $16,301 $ (106,401) Power Generation Non-Production Revenue PJM - Generation Capacity Credit ($625,400) ($612,326) ($13,074) Emissions Allowance Sales $0 $0 $0 Reactive Supply - Gas ($30,000) ($47,372) $17,372 Subtotal - Non-Production Revenue ($655,400) ($659,699) $4,299 SubTotal - All Generation ($298,600) ($106,428) ($192,172) Total - Utilities Cost $4,217,800 $3,640,006 $577,794 Unit Costs Total - Power Supply $64.80 $56.69 $8.11 Total - Power Generation ($4.28) ($1.61) ($2.67) Final Cost of Service to City of Dover Ratepayers $60.51 $55.08 $5.43 City Manager's Monthly Report 26

June Variance Analysis  Power Supply o Dover consumed 3,613 MWh more than forecasted for the month. o Dover saw an unfavorable variance for budgeted Hedged Energy of $450,014. o Dover experienced a favorable variance for budgeted PJM - Energy, Congestion & Losses of $1,010,143 and a favorable variance for PJM ARR, Transmission and Fees of $300,073. o The City of Dover realized a favorable variance of $769,967 for power supply vs. the monthly budget. o Dover Sun Park generated 101 MWhs less than forecasted. o This resulted in a net power supply cost positive budget variance of $8.11/MWh below budget.  Generation o Non Production Revenue had a favorable variance of $4,299 o Net All Generation Revenue had an unfavorable variance of $192,172. PY 2015-2016 Variance Analysis  Power Supply o Dover total Planning Year consumption variance was 328 MWh less than budgeted. o Dover actual variance for Hedged Energy was $208,286 more than forecasted this year. o Dover experienced the largest favorable variance for the planning year in the PJM- Energy, Congestion & Losses with a difference of $5,005,504 from budgeted. o The City experienced the second largest favorable variance for PJM ARR, Transmission and Fees of $2,684,840. o Overall these resulted in a realized favorable variance of $7,967,299 for power supply vs. the Planning Year 2015-2016 budget.  Generation o Total Non-Production Revenue had an unfavorable variance of $387,070. o The Net All Generation Revenue had an unfavorable variance of $236,088 for the year. City Manager's Monthly Report 27

Budget Actual Variance YTD YTD Gross Load 741,200 740,872 328 Power Supply Hedged Energy $23,402,400 $23,610,686 ($208,286) PJM - Energy, Congestion & Losses $7,966,100 2,960,596 $5,005,504 PJM - ARR, Transmission and Fees $7,932,500 5,247,660 $2,684,840 Dover SUN Park Energy $2,313,600 $2,280,044 $33,556 Dover SUN Park RECs $363,300 $344,438 $18,862 RECS (Solar and Non-Solar) $673,200 $0 $673,200 RGGI Credit Costs $175,000 $66,080 $108,920 Management Fees $996,000 $996,000 $0 PJM - Capacity UCAP Obligated Purchased $10,224,900 $10,574,198 ($349,298) Subtotal - Power Supply $54,047,000 $46,079,701 $7,967,299 Power Generation O&M Plant O&M $ 6,382,700 $ 5,714,678 $ 668,022 Subtotal Generation O&M $6,382,700 $ 5,714,678 $668,022 Power Generation Production Margin PJM - Economic and reliability dispatch ($1,708,200) ($1,002,972) ($705,228) Fuel Costs - Natural Gas $1,167,600 $236,940 $930,660 Fuel Costs - Oil $0 $742,471 ($742,471) Testing Costs $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Generation Production Margin ($540,600) ($23,560) $ (517,040) Power Generation Non-Production Revenue PJM - Generation Capacity Credit ($10,472,400) ($9,827,426) ($644,974) Emissions Allowance Sales $0 $0 $0 Reactive Supply - Gas ($360,000) ($617,904) $257,904 Subtotal - Non-Production Revenue ($10,832,400) ($10,445,330) ($387,070) SubTotal - All Generation ($4,990,300) ($4,754,212) ($236,088) Total - Utilities Cost $49,056,700 $41,325,489 $7,731,211 Unit Costs Total - Power Supply $72.92 $62.20 $10.72 Total - Power Generation ($6.73) ($6.42) ($0.32) Final Cost of Service to City of Dover Ratepayers $66.19 $55.78 $10.41 City Manager's Monthly Report 28

III. OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS SUMMARY Executive Summary: During the month of June, there were no recordable accidents or lost time accidents. The facility has gone 441 days through June 30th, 2016 without an OSHA Recordable Accident and has not had a Lost Time Accident since the January 12th, 2015 incident, (535 days). Unit 11 was started and completed a Full Speed No Load (FSNL) run on June 8th with no issues. Units 1, 2, and 11 were not dispatched during the month of June by PJM or the City of Dover. Unit 3 was self- dispatched one time during June and ran thru the night with no issues. Monthly Budget Variance – The actual expenses attributable to O&M of the two sites for the month of June are $536,970 against a budgeted amount of $446,425 for an unfavorable variance of $90,545 or 20.28%. The variance was due to: Personnel Expenses had an unfavorable variance of $33,944 which was due to not having two payroll periods and a partial payroll accrual expensed which was more than the two payroll periods budgeted for. The Materials and Supplies variance was unfavorable by $10,633, this was due to the completion of building maintenance related items and water treatment chemical purchases that were budgeted for earlier in the year. The Administrative Expense variance was also unfavorable $45,968 due primarily to the initial costs of the accelerated unit startup that was not originally budgeted for this fiscal year and the accrual of additional utility bills for the month of June (standard City practice for years end). The table for Unit 3 at MRGS, page 8, represents the #2 fuel oil burned in BTU’s and the natural gas burned in BTU’s for Unit 3 by month. The stipulation of the Title V permit only allows #2 fuel oil combustion during testing, emergencies and gas curtailments. We have combusted Unit 3 on approximately 181,000 gallons of oil to date with approximately 61,000 of those gallons used for unit “testing”. That leaves about 120,000 gallons of oil MMBTU which needs to be burned as gas at 9 times the MMBTU content to meet the Title V requirements. This table was updated to reflect the June Unit operations on natural gas and the remaining operations on natural gas required to meet Title V compliance for the current reporting year. City Manager's Monthly Report 29

NAES Corporation Dover, Delaware June 2016 Monthly Report Jesse Kummerer receives his One Year Anniversary Certificate with NAES at the City of Dover Generation Facilities4 4Cover Photo: Jesse Kummerer completes One Year of Service at the City of Dover Generation Stations as a NAES employee. City Manager's Monthly Report 30

Table of Contents 1.0 Environmental, Health and Safety 2.0 Financials 3.0 Operations 4.0 Maintenance 5.0 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP 6.0 General Plant Information 7.0 Training 8.0 Calendar of Upcoming Events 9.0 “Value Added” Accomplishments during June City Manager's Monthly Report 31

1.0 Environmental, Health and Safety During the month of June, there were no recordable accidents, lost time accidents or environmental incidents. The facility has gone 535 days through June 30, 2016 without a Lost Time Accident (LTI) and 441 days since the April 16, 2015 recordable accident. There was one (1) Near Miss reported in June 2016 at McKee Run or VanSant Generating Station. During the month of June, there were 226,400-gallons of industrial wastewater discharged to the Kent County Public Works sewer system. McKee Run collected a representative sample of the discharge on June 1, 2016 and submitted the monthly SIU Report to Kent County Public Works. Based on laboratory analytical data, no environmental exceedances or violations occurred. During the month of June, there were no NPDES storm water sampling events at McKee Run’s Outfall 001, 004, 005 and 006. The June e-DMR was completed and is awaiting City of Dover to submit to DNREC. The McKee Run and VanSant Station underwent their quarterly 40 CFR Part 60 Title V opacity inspections on Units 1, 2, 3 and 11. All units passed the inspections. 1.1 Environmental, Health and Safety Tables City Manager's Monthly Report 32

5 1.2 Air Permit Fuel Operation Title V Permit Compliance McKee Run Generating Station: The Title V Permit dictates that natural gas is the primary fuel source for the unit operations and stipulates that by April 16, 2015, the boiler shall not combust oil for more than 10.0% of the average annual heat value MMbtu input during any 3 calendar years or no for more than 15% of the annual heat rate during any single calendar year. The tables below track fuel combustion operations to ensure compliance with the respective site Title V permits are maintained. Up to 48 hours can be used for “testing” purposes and gas curtailments are an allowable exception to the rule. The plant is communicating with Eastern Shore to obtain the required written confirmation of NG outages for compliance purposes. We are also and determining how many operating hours were done for “testing” which will also reduce the required natural gas to combust to be incompliance for Unit 3. 5 Not actual RGGI balances, NAES’ accounting of allowance balance per COMPAS reports and emissions for the year. City Manager's Monthly Report 33

Van Sant Station: The Title V Air permit restrictions with regards to operations, is limited to 70,080 MW- hr. per calendar year with a rolling average of 35,040 MW-hr. over the previous 3 calendar years. City Manager's Monthly Report 34

2.0 Financials Monthly and year to date financial results as compared with the approved power plant budget for the Generation Units are provided below. 2.1 Variance analysis: The actual expenses for the month of June are $536,970 against a budgeted amount of $446,425 for an unfavorable variance of $90,545 or 20.28%. The variance was due to the following: PERSONNEL EXPENSES – An unfavorable monthly variance of $33,944 was due to having (2) payroll periods and a partial payroll accrual expensed vs. the (2) that were budgeted. Note a portion of this unfavorable variance was offset by not having a full complement of employees for this time period. As a result, this impacted three (3) labor accounts – Straight Time, Overtime, and Labor Burdens. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES EXPENSES- An unfavorable monthly variance of $10,633 was due to completion of building maintenance related items and water treatment chemical purchases that were budgeted for earlier in the fiscal year. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES – An unfavorable monthly variance of $45,968 was due primarily to costs associated with the accelerated unit startup work that was not budgeted for this FY and accrual of additional utility bills for the month of June. Note: These are not the final results for the end of the 2015-2016 fiscal year. The City of Dover hasn’t closed fiscal year entirely. The expenses listed are as of 07/21/16. City Manager's Monthly Report 35

3.0 Operations Unit Operations / Outages / Trips: Team completed a full speed no load test on Unit 11 on June 8th for thirty minutes with no issues. Units 1, 2 and 11 were not dispatched during the month of June by PJM or by the City of Dover. City of Dover self-dispatched Unit 3 one time during June. A successful start-up was achieved and the unit ran thru the night with no issues. City Manager's Monthly Report 36

City Manager's Monthly Report 37

3.1 Team Report: The Operations Department continues to utilize the on duty Day Shift Team to support plant Operations and general Maintenance of the plant. The Operations Team continues to support maintenance by completing Preventative Maintenance (PM) work orders and other plant related work orders utilizing their skills to successfully complete the task. The Operations Team continues to complete GPI Learning courses to improve their knowledge and skills. The GPI online training targets OSHA safety training and OSHA environmental training. Also GPI online training is utilized to completed NAES SMP (Safety & Environmental) Training; the operators review the plant’s safety and environmental permits/policies/manuals and complete a final test for knowledge of the material. 4.0 Maintenance During the month of June, the Plant Maintenance staff continued addressing the backlog of work orders, preventative maintenance (PM’s) and new work orders received during the month. Back logged Work Orders are work orders that have been open for greater than thirty days. There were 90 new work orders issued with 63 work orders being completed, and 15 of the back logged work orders completed during the month. There were no new Safety Work Orders entered into the plant’s Computerized Maintenance Management System (MP2) for the McKee Run site during the month and 1 was completed. The table below summarizes the monthly work order activities based on MP2 work order records and will continue to improve with time. This table gives a representation of identified outstanding work; Preventative Maintenance tasks completion and remaining corrective work orders and back logged work orders that require attention. City Manager's Monthly Report 38

Notable activities during the month include: The IC&E, Maintenance and Operation staff completed a water wash on the gas turbine machine. The machine was washed in accordance with the GE procedure for water washing the machine with soap. The IC&E staff completed the installation of the electrical systems for the wet compression building. The system included lighting indoors and outdoors, house heating, air compressor circuit and general outlet wiring. The Maintenance Supervisor attended the Frame 6 User Group Conference. There was a great deal of information that was acquired during the conference that will assist the facility in performing maintenance and looking toward the upcoming major inspection of the Frame 6B gas turbine. The IC&E technicians and STI CEMS technician completed the quarterly audit and maintenance of the opacity monitors at the McKee Run and VanSant stations. There were no issues with the audit or the maintenance. The Maintenance staff & IC&E staff completed installation of an electrical fuel pump with an automatic overflow shut off on the diesel fuel storage tank for mobile equipment. The pump will allow safer operation when filling mobile equipment and lessen the possibility of a fuel spill. City Manager's Monthly Report 39

5.0 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) This month’s report for CIP project planned and budgeted for the current budget year 2015/2016 with the status to date for the project. City Manager's Monthly Report 40

6.0 General Plant Information Plant employees celebrated with a Pizza Party to recognize the 1 Year Anniversary of Jesse Kummerer. Jesse came to us from the Williamson School of Free Trade and has become an integral part of our Plant processes. He continues to learn and train as an Operator for the facility. Phil Marvel, Maintenance Supervisor, attended the annual Frame 6 training in West Palm Beach, Florida from June 13 through June 17. During June, we offered the position of IC&E Technician to applicant Jonathan Evans, who th accepted. Jonathan will start his new position at McKee Run on July 8 . More information will be forthcoming on Jonathan in the July Monthly Report. Negotiations for a renewed contract between NAES and IBEW Local 1238 continued on June 14. A one month extension was agreed to and negotiations are going to resume in July, the next meeting is scheduled on July 12, 2016. 7.0 Training Safety Topics discussed during the June monthly safety committee meeting were reviewed by the entire staff. The monthly safety topic was on Circular Saw Safety Tips covering the proper use of a circular saw and safety related practices for safe use and proper operation of a circular saw. The Operating Teams continued to utilize PJM and OES-NA computer based training programs for maintaining their PJM/NERC Generation Owner Certification/Continuing Education Hours. (CEH’s) All staff continued to work on their GPi Learn topic subjects and NAES Safety Manual review. 8.0 Calendar of Upcoming Events A forecast of general event dates for the power plant projects, outages and various agency reporting dates are listed below. City Manager's Monthly Report 41

9.0 “Value Added” Accomplishments during May During the month the power plant staff accomplished the normal preventative and corrective maintenance for the generation units. We are tasked with maintaining and protecting the City of Dover power generation assets and keeping them “available” for dispatch when called. Listed below are some of the work accomplishments that have been completed this month that NAES feels added value to the generation unit assets, protected the assets from deterioration or inoperability, and overall increased the life expectancy through maintenance practices including preventative and predictive maintenance tasks (see Section 4 - Maintenance Work Orders) for the City of Dover assets.  The construction of the equipment shed for the inlet fogging system at the Van Sant facility was completed. The maintenance staff completed all conduit runs, and wiring for the building, installed building insulating materials, installed a space heater and ordered concrete for the building flooring to eliminate ankle twists or trip hazards because of the pump skids that were originally installed to support the inlet fogging equipment.  The Inlet Fogging System was taken out of winter lay-up and made ready to run for the summer season during June. This system effectively increases the overall generation capacity approximately 6.3 MW according to testing performed in June 2015.  The Nitrogen generator was received in June and installation of the unit is in progress. The forecast for installation completion is the end of July.  The plant is analyzing the possibility of having Unit 1 and Unit 2 converted to synchronous condensers which would result in a revenue gain to the City of Dover. The feasibility study will be completed this year to determine what the conversion would cost and what potential revenue can be earned by those two units. We are working with PJM to determine approximately what amount of revenue could be possible. The company providing the feasibility study is visiting the McKee Run Generating Station in August as part of their efforts to determining the success for converting these units.  During the GE 6B Users Conference in Florida this year the Maintenance Supervisor learned that it is possible to change the ratcheting device (clutch) on the combustion turbine unit which could also allow the Van Sant unit to be used as a synchronous condenser as well. The cost effectiveness of this modification will also be explored as another means of achieving additional revenue for the City of Dover. City Manager's Monthly Report 42

IV. APPENDIX: PJM INVOICE Monthly Billing Statement - CSV REPORT NAME: and XML CUSTOMER ACCOUNT: City of Dover, Delaware CUSTOMER CODE: DOVDE CUSTOMER ID: 76.000000 FINAL BILLING STATEMENT ISSUED: 7/8/2016 9:56 BILLING PERIOD START DATE: 6/1/2016 BILLING PERIOD END DATE: 6/30/2016 INVOICE NUMBER: 2016063000076.000000 INVOICE DUE DATE: 7/15/2016 12:00 SOURCE BILLING PERIOD CHARGES ADJ BILLING LINE ITEM NAME START AMOUNT ($) Network Integration 1100.000000 Transmission Service 288576.000000 1108.000000 Transmission Enhancement 50813.400000 Firm Point-to-Point 1130.000000 Transmission Service 0.000000 Non-Firm Point-to-Point 1140.000000 Transmission Service 0.000000 1200.000000 Day-ahead Spot Market Energy 312614.070000 1205.000000 Balancing Spot Market Energy -45381.470000 Day-ahead Transmission 1210.000000 Congestion -232057.800000 Balancing Transmission 1215.000000 Congestion 11868.480000 Day-ahead Transmission 1220.000000 Losses -2283.860000 1225.000000 Balancing Transmission Losses 1383.710000 1230.000000 Inadvertent Interchange -555.020000 Day-Ahead Load Response 1242.000000 Charge Allocation 49.610000 Real-Time Load Response 1243.000000 Charge Allocation 131.550000 1250.000000 Meter Error Correction -1527.680000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - 1301.000000 Control Area Administration 11014.900000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - 1302.000000 FTR Administration 2.400000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - 1303.000000 Market Support 2569.670000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 Administration 84.250000 City Manager's Monthly Report 43

PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Capacity Resource/Obligation 1305.000000 Mgmt. 922.500000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Advanced Second Control 1306.000000 Center 1468.990000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - 1307.000000 Market Support Offset -224.160000 1313.000000 PJM Settlement, Inc. 224.160000 Market Monitoring Unit (MMU) 1314.000000 Funding 384.690000 1315.000000 FERC Annual Recovery 4238.000000 Organization of PJM States, Inc. 1316.000000 (OPSI) Funding 45.580000 North American Electric 1317.000000 Reliability Corporation (NERC) 800.740000 Reliability First Corporation 1318.000000 (RFC) 1308.520000 Transmission Owner Scheduling, System Control and 1320.000000 Dispatch Service 4836.920000 Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation and 1330.000000 Other Sources Service 29983.200000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 Response Service 5751.520000 1360.000000 Synchronized Reserve 3270.900000 1362.000000 Non-Synchronized Reserve 652.220000 1365.000000 Day-ahead Scheduling Reserve 524.860000 1370.000000 Day-ahead Operating Reserve 4336.020000 1375.000000 Balancing Operating Reserve 2582.280000 Balancing Operating Reserve for 1376.000000 Load Response 0.470000 1378.000000 Reactive Services 3689.130000 1380.000000 Black Start Service 5342.190000 Load Reconciliation for Spot 1400.000000 Market Energy -1862.590000 Load Reconciliation for 1410.000000 Transmission Congestion 11.680000 Load Reconciliation for 1420.000000 Transmission Losses 27.490000 Load Reconciliation for 1430.000000 Inadvertent Interchange 0.190000 Load Reconciliation for PJM Scheduling, System Control and 1440.000000 Dispatch Service -13.320000 Load Reconciliation for Schedule 9-6 - Advanced 1442.000000 Second Control Center -1.380000 Load Reconciliation for Market 1444.000000 Monitoring Unit (MMU) Funding -0.370000 Load Reconciliation for FERC 1445.000000 Annual Recovery -4.200000 City Manager's Monthly Report 44

Load Reconciliation for Organization of PJM States, Inc. 1446.000000 (OPSI) Funding -0.050000 Load Reconciliation for North American Electric Reliability 1447.000000 Corporation (NERC) -0.790000 Load Reconciliation for Reliability First Corporation 1448.000000 (RFC) -1.300000 Load Reconciliation for Transmission Owner Scheduling, System Control and 1450.000000 Dispatch Service -4.790000 Load Reconciliation for Regulation and Frequency 1460.000000 Response Service -6.690000 Load Reconciliation for 1470.000000 Synchronized Reserve 1.150000 Load Reconciliation for Non- 1472.000000 Synchronized Reserve 0.670000 Load Reconciliation for Day- 1475.000000 ahead Scheduling Reserve 0.400000 Load Reconciliation for 1478.000000 Balancing Operating Reserve -1.310000 Load Reconciliation for Reactive 1490.000000 Services -2.390000 1600.000000 RPM Auction 14308.500000 1610.000000 Locational Reliability 654857.100000 CP Transitional Locational 1611.000000 Reliability 211492.500000 1932.000000 Generation Deactivation Refund -328.470000 1230.000000 A Inadvertent Interchange 4/1/2016 -18.910000 1230.000000 A Inadvertent Interchange 5/1/2016 -0.430000 1250.000000 A Meter Error Correction 5/1/2016 19.210000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 10/1/2014 0.020000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 11/1/2014 0.020000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 12/1/2014 -0.020000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 1/1/2015 0.010000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 2/1/2015 0.020000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 3/1/2015 0.000000 City Manager's Monthly Report 45

PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 4/1/2015 0.030000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 5/1/2015 0.090000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 6/1/2015 0.010000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 7/1/2015 0.020000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 8/1/2015 0.020000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 9/1/2015 0.040000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 10/1/2015 0.010000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Regulation Market 1304.000000 A Administration 5/1/2016 0.290000 PJM Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service - Advanced Second Control 1306.000000 A Center 10/1/2015 -0.010000 Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation and 1330.000000 A Other Sources Service 5/1/2016 1.770000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 10/1/2014 1.170000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 11/1/2014 1.850000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 12/1/2014 1.180000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 1/1/2015 3.450000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 2/1/2015 22.470000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 3/1/2015 4.990000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 4/1/2015 3.290000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 5/1/2015 7.650000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 6/1/2015 2.560000 City Manager's Monthly Report 46

Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 7/1/2015 4.500000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 8/1/2015 2.160000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 9/1/2015 6.870000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 10/1/2015 1.310000 Regulation and Frequency 1340.000000 A Response Service 5/1/2016 19.800000 1360.000000 A Synchronized Reserve 10/1/2014 -35.250000 1360.000000 A Synchronized Reserve 5/1/2016 -1.420000 1375.000000 A Balancing Operating Reserve 1/1/2015 63.470000 1375.000000 A Balancing Operating Reserve 8/1/2015 2.250000 1375.000000 A Balancing Operating Reserve 2/1/2016 -22.090000 1375.000000 A Balancing Operating Reserve 4/1/2016 -21.600000 1375.000000 A Balancing Operating Reserve 5/1/2016 12.240000 1380.000000 A Black Start Service 5/1/2016 492.310000 Michigan - Ontario Interface 1911.000000 A Phase Angle Regulators 5/1/2016 177.980000 Total Charges 1346666.300000 SOURCE BILLING PERIOD CREDITS ADJ BILLING LINE ITEM NAME START AMOUNT ($) Network Integration 2100.000000 Transmission Service 0.000000 2108.000000 Transmission Enhancement 10899.800000 Firm Point-to-Point 2130.000000 Transmission Service 0.000000 Non-Firm Point-to-Point 2140.000000 Transmission Service 472.770000 2210.000000 Transmission Congestion 0.000000 2220.000000 Transmission Losses 17879.480000 Transmission Owner Scheduling, System Control and 2320.000000 Dispatch Service 0.000000 Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation and 2330.000000 Other Sources Service 29388.000000 Regulation and Frequency 2340.000000 Response Service 0.000000 2360.000000 Synchronized Reserve 0.000000 2365.000000 Day-ahead Scheduling Reserve 3.300000 2370.000000 Day-ahead Operating Reserve 0.000000 2375.000000 Balancing Operating Reserve 0.000000 2380.000000 Black Start Service 0.000000 Load Reconciliation for 2420.000000 Transmission Losses -12.300000 2510.000000 Auction Revenue Rights 62555.700000 2600.000000 RPM Auction 626634.900000 Incremental Capacity Transfer 2640.000000 Rights 1071.300000 2661.000000 Capacity Resource Deficiency 1984.840000 City Manager's Monthly Report 47

Non-Firm Point-to-Point 2140.000000 A Transmission Service 5/1/2016 27.260000 2210.000000 A Transmission Congestion 5/1/2016 0.000000 2220.000000 A Transmission Losses 4/1/2016 -0.810000 2220.000000 A Transmission Losses 5/1/2016 -0.050000 Transmission Owner Scheduling, System Control and 2320.000000 A Dispatch Service 5/1/2016 3.110000 2661.000000 A Capacity Resource Deficiency 9/1/2014 386.400000 2661.000000 A Capacity Resource Deficiency 10/1/2014 168.000000 Generation Resource Rating 2662.000000 A Test Failure 12/1/2015 17.360000 Generation Resource Rating 2662.000000 A Test Failure 1/1/2016 17.360000 Generation Resource Rating 2662.000000 A Test Failure 2/1/2016 16.240000 Generation Resource Rating 2662.000000 A Test Failure 3/1/2016 17.360000 Generation Resource Rating 2662.000000 A Test Failure 4/1/2016 16.800000 Generation Resource Rating 2662.000000 A Test Failure 5/1/2016 17.360000 2666.000000 A Load Management Test Failure 12/1/2015 -39.760000 2666.000000 A Load Management Test Failure 1/1/2016 -5.750000 2666.000000 A Load Management Test Failure 2/1/2016 -5.380000 2666.000000 A Load Management Test Failure 3/1/2016 -5.750000 2666.000000 A Load Management Test Failure 4/1/2016 -5.570000 2666.000000 A Load Management Test Failure 5/1/2016 -5.750000 Total Credits 751496.220000 Monthly Billing Net Total 595170.080000 Previous Weekly Billing Net Total 500292.840000 Total Due / Receivable 94877.240000 City Manager's Monthly Report 48

City Planner’s Monthly Report Planning, Inspections & Recreation JUNE 2016 Planning, Inspections & Recreation Highlights  Courtney Kenton joined the Inspections Staff as a new Office Assistant on June 20, 2016 .  Plan4Health -The Plan4Health Charrette: Dover Health Planning Week was held June 13-15, 2016 to gather information and ideas on planning for healthy living in Dover. A series of open house events were hosted in the Community Room of Bayard Plaza in Downtown Dover. See www.deplan4health.org.  Summer Camps - With the start of summer, our camps have offered fam- ilies affordable options. Camp Small Wonder sold out again this year with 97 youth, our sports camps have touted 47 attendees for featured sports, and Super Summer Playground has seen higher than last year participant numbers with more than 100 youth in the first 3 weeks. In July, we expect participation numbers to continue to grow.  Concerts on The Green - June hosted wonderful entertainers with Miss Delaware show casing their activities, Steffi & Tim pleased the crowed with their lyrics, Joe Baione returned again this season and of course the popular Honeycombs were a pleasure to see. Imagine offered an evening of joyous sounds during their concert. Be sure to check out the series on Thursday’s at 7 pm. Sponsored in part, this year by Eden Hill Medical Center, Chesapeake Utilities and the YMCA of Dover.  Mallard Pond Playground Equipment - With a grant from the State of Delaware, we’ve installed new playground equipment for the residents of Mallard Pond and the surrounding neighborhoods. This equipment came after hosting a public meeting asking for input on what types of equipment residents would like to see, with their drawings our staff and GameTime representatives put to- gether another outstanding playground. Next look for the path- way improvements to continue our enhancement efforts in this area.  Summer Youth Basketball - Our annual summer youth basketball program is underway. With 146 youth in the league, these youth now have a place to go one evening a week for practice and their awesome games are played on Saturdays. Come on out to see this league in action, you will be amazed at the fun these kids are having.

PROGRESS IN PICTURES ROSS DRESS FOR LESS 1574 North DuPont Highway, Suite 500 Shoe Carnival 1574 North DuPont Highway, Suite 400 CRICKET 1225 North DuPont Highway

Planning, Inspections & Recreation Revenue FY '16 Budget FY '16 Actual Revenue Stream Revenue Note: Several revenue Business License $1,425,000 $ 1,475,794 100% lines finished the year above Trailer License $21,000 $ 20,167 96% the budget projections. In most Building Permits $600,000 $ 583,900 97% cases, this related to the fee Cert. of Occupancy $6,500 $ 12,840 198% increased adopted by City Public Occupancy $9,700 $ 23,356 241% Council in late 2015. In the Lodging House $14,100 $ 13,666 97% case of the increase in Recrea- Plumbing/Heating/Air $75,000 $ 97,804 130% tion revenue, this is related to Rental Inspection Fee $350,000 $ 399,409 114% the addition of new program- Miscellaneous $15,000 $ 43,630 291% ming, including our new youth Fire Protection Fees $62,000 $ 75,001 121% soccer league and the Dover Code Enf. Fines $25,000 $ 41,750 167% Duathlon planned by the Bicy- Vacant Building Reg. $100,000 $ 210,567 211% cle and Pedestrian Subcom- mittee. Total P&I Revenue $2,703,300 $ 2,997,883 109% Recreation $149,800 $ 183,174 123% PERSONNEL AND TRAINING  June 23, 2016 was Jared Boesenberg’s last day with the City of Dover. Jared took on a position with the Anne Arundel County, Maryland Fire Department. PLANNING OFFICE The Planning Office is part of the review process for certain types of construc- tion activity permits (Building Permits, Sign Permits, etc.) and Certificate of Oc- cupancy permits. For June 2016, Planning Staff was involved with review of 103 Permits and 18 Certificates of Occupancy permits. (2016 calendar year total of 554 Permits and CO’s compared to 467 for 2015). Thus Permit activity is up when compared to previous years. Planning Staff also reviews new applications for Business Licenses and Rental Dwelling Permits.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Planning Staff continues to focus on the various implementation items identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended.  The Planning Office is also involved in the following studies and projects: Restoring Cen- tral Dover Community Plan implementation, Transportation Improvement Districts, and the Division Street/Forest Street Design Week Charrette.  Planning Office Staff is also assisting in developing conceptual plans for improvements to the recreational amenities at Schutte Park in preparation for a public workshop to be held in July.  The Planning Office continues the use of the mobile GIS application for data collection in the study of “Non-conforming Uses” to identify non-compliant uses in residential zones.  Proposed Ordinance #2016-16 for a series of amendments to the Dover Code of Ordinanc- es and Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Manufactured Housing began the review process in June with the Legislative Finance & Administration Committee on June 14 th and the First Reading at the June 27, 2016 City Council Meeting. It is scheduled for a Public Hear- ing and Review by the Planning Commission in July. The proposed amendments update the standards and terminology related to manufactured homes and also implement stand- ards for management and maintenance of land lease communities. Construction Activity  Construction activities continue at several multi-family residential projects. These include the Leander Lakes Apartments project south of Forrest Avenue/Route 8 (S-12-18), the re- development of Walker Woods as the Village of McKee Branch (S-13-18), and the re-start of construction at the Tall Pines project at 1655 and 1665 Kenton Road (S-14-18) and this first building of Phase 2 at the Blue Hen Apartments Complex. There are also residential construction activity in Clearview Meadows PND, Nottingham Meadows, Senators Lake, Village of Westover Phase VI, and Village of Cannon Mill.  Permits were issued to begin construction of a building addition at Dover Behavioral Health on Horsepond Road (S-16-04)  Construction activities for site work and infrastructure improvements began for the Neigh- borhood Commercial District of the Eden Hill Farm Traditional Neighborhood District project in preparation for the first building. (S-16-08) JUNE 16 TOTAL FOR 2016 New Home Permits Issued 11 33 Value of Commercial Projects $4,192,535.00 $19,845,905.00 Downtown Incentives (Fees $2,281.00 $4,453.00 Waived)

BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTIVITY Planning Commission The Planning Commission met on June 20, 2016. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for July 18, 2016. The following application was considered:  MI-16-07 Clearview Meadows PND: Lots 213-265 Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan and Consideration of Alternative Bulk Standards— Commission moved to recommend approval of Alternative Bulk Standards, specifically lot width for townhouses to allow for approval of a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan to resize fifty-three (53) townhouse lots. Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment met on June 15, 2016. The next regular scheduled meet- ing of the Board of Adjustment is scheduled for July 20, 2016. The following ap- plications were considered:  V-16-05 385 Saulsbury Road: Family Dental Associates c/o Christopher A. Na- crelli—The Board moved to approve variance application V-16-05 for parking as related to the maximum allowed parking for the proposed use.  V-16-06 Project at 1310-1324 Forrest Avenue—The Board moved to table vari- ance V-16-06 pertaining to the maximum allowed height of buildings located with the COZ-1. Historic District Commission  The Historic District Commission did not meet on June 16, 2016. The next His- toric District Commission meeting is scheduled for July 21, 2016.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CDBG FY15 Projects Homeownership Assistance Program CDBG funds will be used to provide homeownership assistance to first-time homebuyers who purchase affordable housing in the Downtown Development District (DDD) Target Area. Two (2) families pur- chased a property in the DDD Target Area. This project is completed. Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing CDBG funds will be used to provide operations cost for the shelter. This project is completed. A total of 250 men were sheltered during the program year. Connections Community Support Program CDBG funds will be used to provide rapid re-housing/rental assistance services for homeless households within the City. Rental assistance was provided for two (2) low income persons. Milford Housing Homeowner Rehabilitation Program CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate existing owner occupied housing in the City that is in violation of the City’s Housing Code and complete emergency home repairs to eliminate housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of low income homeowners. Emergency home repairs were completed for five (5) low income households and homeowner rehabs for three (3) low income families. Habitat for Humanity CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate an existing home to provide affordable housing to a family in the Downtown Development District Target Area. Habitat for Humanity purchased 111 S. Queen Street on November 2, 2015, renovated the property, and sold the property on December 18, 2015 to a first time homebuyer. Remainder of the funding was utilized for asbestos removal for properties in the DDD Tar- get Area that will be renovated and sold to low income families. Peoples Place Whatcoat Homeless Shelter CDBG funds will be utilized for minor renovations to a facility that shelters the homeless. This Project is completed. Neighborhood Stabilization Program Settlement assistance was provided for five (5) families who purchased affordable housing in the City of Dover and was able to assist in stabilizing our neighborhoods by purchasing properties that have been vacant for at least 90 days or foreclosed. The following properties were purchased providing NSP settle- ment assistance:  40 Spruance Road  310 Crickle Creek Lane  155 Periwinkle Drive  12 Bacon Court  1231 Harrison Drive

Code Enforcement Activity—JUNE Case Type # cases current # cases % staff initiated % staff initiated month YTD current month YTD No valid Rental Permit 15 94 98% 99% No valid Building Permit 1 26 95% 98% Tall grass and weeds 38 326 82% 80% Unregistered vehicle 12 28 75% 60% Abandoned vehicle 5 27 60% 80% Annual Housing Inspection 29 123 93% 80% Property Maintenance – 39 230 72% 79% Exterior Electric Termination 12 67 100% 99% Dover Code of Ordinances 51 280 67% 81% Zoning 7 28 57% 75% Total Cases 209 1229 Total # of Inspections For 301 Month 528 Bay Road-Dangerous Building House at 411 W. Reed Street—Dangerous Building

Dangerous Buildings, Vacant Buildings & Demolitions  35 N. Queen Street—Property is condemned and a lien search is complete; home has been placed on the market for sale. An adjacent land owner has inquired about purchasing the property and demolishing the structure; they currently are in contact with City Staff.  2 S. Queen Street—Property was brought forward to City Council on December 9th as a dangerous building. Council declared that the owner would have 15 days to submit a con- tractor’s plan for renovations to City Staff and to place the issue back on the City Council agenda for January 11, 216, for further review. Council has ordered that the home be de- molished by February 11, 2016. The demolition of the structure has been delayed.  53 S. New Street—A fire occurred within this residence on January 14, 2016. City Staff scheduled an emergency hearing for Dover Council on January 25, 2016, where City Council declared the structure dangerous and ordered it demolished or repaired by Febru- ary 10, 2016. The property has been sold and the new owners have advised that they are going to demolish the structure and build a new home on the site.  234 N. Kirkwood Street—Property was condemned when the Dover Police Department discovered that a meth lab was being operated in a vacant home.  200 N. West Street—A Demolition Permit was submitted by the new owners of the proper- ty and was approved. The property has been demolished.  528 Bay Road—Commercial property is condemned and will be going to City Council in August as City Staff will request permission to have the structure demolished.  139 Mitscher Road—This property was condemned in July of 2015 as unfit for habitation. City Staff had scheduled it to go to City Council on August 24, 2015, to request permis- sion to have the structure demolished, but the property sold and the new owner obtained permits for renovations. Since that date, minimal work has been performed and City Staff will be taking this to City Council in August 2016 to request permission to have the home demolished.  126 N. Ann Avenue—Notice sent to owner advising them that this property will be going forward to City Council on August 1st as a dangerous building.  145 N. Ann Avenue—Notice sent to owner advising them that this property will be going forward to City Council on August 1st as a dangerous building.  Vacant Buildings—During the month of June, twenty (20) additional buildings were regis- tered as vacant, and $22,950.00 in vacant building registration fees were collected.

Fire Marshal’s Office, Building Inspections & Licensing Summary LIFE SAFETY Current July15-June16 June 2015 July14-June15 Inspections JUNE 16 FYTD 16 JUNE 15 FYTD 15 Annual Fire/Life Safety Inspections 10 322 35 403 Fire/Code/DCO Complaints 21 349 30 478 Inspection Deficiencies from AFI 34 1231 73 983 C/O & Acceptance Tests 14 180 27 118 Administrative Walk Thru 14 138 19 106 Plan Review 23 125 9 - Accidental $1.00 $315,000 $16,100 $421,000 Incendiary $0.00 $17,716 $0.00 $73,600 Undetermined $36,001 $482,951 $0.00 $22,900 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued JUNE 16 FYTD 16 JUNE 15 FYTD 15 Administrative Permit 6 53 2 27 Building Addition/Renovation Permits 42 369 28 407 Building Permits 27 169 26 210 Demolition Permits 2 54 3 50 Fence Permits 13 110 12 97 Fire Prevention Permits 9 113 8 98 Mechanical Permits 53 432 35 309 Plumbing Permits 60 420 26 285 Sign Permits 15 247 20 253 Swimming Pool Permits 1 6 4 13 Business Licenses 49 1339 966 2032 Merchant Licenses 1 284 91 299 Contractor Licenses 24 927 368 1022 Lodging House Licenses 0 42 0 55 Mobile Homes 1 273 115 418 Public Occupancy 17 396 8 407 Rental Dwelling 46 398 18 3539 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Inspections JUNE 16 FYTD 16 JUNE 15 FYTD 15 Building 407 3777 341 3863 Plumbing/Mechanical 327 3819 244 3373 Certificate of Occupancy 18 171 8 160

Fire Marshal’s Office—At a Glance The Fire Marshal’s Office investigated a total of six (6) incidents in the month of June, to include a fire at 1220 N. Farmview Drive which resulted in a large fire loss. During the month of June, the Fire Marshal’s Office conducted several inspections and acceptance tests. The Office also worked 152 hours to ensure the safety of the citizens and visitors in the lots and festival grounds utilized for the Firefly Music Festival. This festival is now completely inside the City of Dover lim- its. Recreation Division Enrollment Summary JUNE FY 16 verses JUNE FY 15 800 FY15 600 FY16 400 200 0 Ge n Rec Sports Trips Leagues Camps Category FY15 FY16 General Recreation 170 248 Sports 115 11 Trips 0 7 Leagues 572 616 Camps 253 405

Revenue Breakdown: June 2016 verses June 2015 General Recreation General Recreation Sports Sports Trips Trips Leagues Leagues Building & Field Rentals Building & Field Rentals Camps Camps Youth Connections/CSW Youth Connections/CSW General Recreation 2,505.15 General Recreation 2,435 Sports 100 Sports 180 Trips 0 Trips 0.00 Leagues 8,525 Leagues 7,505 Building & Field Rentals 750 Building & Field Rentals 1,025 Camps 14,325 Camps 6300 Youth Connections/CSW 21925.10 Youth Connections/CSW 26,040.10

John W. Pitts Recreation Center – JUNE 2016 Total Program Attendance Facility Usage By The Hour 20,000 1,000 15,000 800 600 10,000 400 5,000 200 0 June 15 0 June 15 July 15 Aug 15 Sept 15 July 15 Aug 15 Sept 15 Oct 15 Nov 15 Dec 15 Oct 15 Nov 15 Dec 15 Jan 16 Feb 16 Mar 16 Jan 16 Feb 16 Mar 16 Apr 16 May 16 June 16 Apr 16 May 16 June 16 ** Program Attendance figures includes daily participants, parents and spectators in the facility. Facility Usage By The Hour JUNE 16 FYTD 16 JUNE 15 FYTD 15 Open Gym 230.5 4,335.75 357 4,746.5 Fitness Classes 30.5 403 41.5 465.5 Leagues 119.5 1,293.5 42.5 905 Camps 392.5 1,390.5 302 1,066 Sports Classes 0 160.5 12 257 Meetings & Rentals 2 269 12 376 Enrichment Classes 0 27 0 14 Total Facility Usage Hours 775 7,879.25 767 7,830 Daily Program Attendance** JUNE 16 FYTD 16 JUNE 15 FYTD 15 Total 3,386 60,326 2,511 55,860 Open Gym 197 4,367 464 6,222 Fitness Classes 158 2,274 273 3,231 Leagues 2,473 46,981 1345 33,803 Camps 503 1,734 228 1,413 Sports Classes 0 2,126 77 2,416 Meetings & Rentals 55 2,711 124 8,720 Enrichment Classes 0 133 0 55 Since our opening in late April 2008, we have had 446,853 guests at the John W. Pitts Recreation Center. June Open Gym Registrations and Packages Sold Packages Sold: JUNE MTD YTD FYTD Daily: 17 $51 159 $477 Individual Quarterly: 0 $15 11 $165 Individual Annual: 0 $0 0 $0 Family Quarterly: 0 $0 0 $0 Family Annual: 0 $0_ 0 __ $0_ Revenue: 17 $64 170 $642

CITY OF DOVER FINANCE AND PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY DEPARTMENTS JUNE 2016 - MONTHLY BUDGET REPORTS PLEASE NOTE – THIS REPORT PROVIDES TOP LINE INFORMATION ON THE OPERATING FUNDS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

CITY OF DOVER ACTIVITY REPORTS JUNE 2016 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY LEVELS FY15 YTD FY16 YTD BANK TRENDS Number of Deposits Made (Hand, ACH & Wire, Lockbox) 7,081 7,173 Total Amount of All Deposits $ 139,660,260 $ 127,466,922 PAYROLL Hours % Amount Hours % Amount Gross wages per registers 867,258 100.0% $ 20,657,461 896,060 100.0% $ 21,823,511 Wages and Hours Worked Regular 711,148 82.0% $ 15,756,209 739,453 82.5% $ 16,614,278 All over time 36,281 4.2% $ 1,503,340 36,855 4.1% $ 1,618,456 Other Paid or Unpaid Wages and Hours Vacation 43,356 5.0% $ 1,162,408 41,766 4.7% $ 1,095,930 Sick 18,354 2.1% $ 463,386 16,216 1.8% $ 410,015 Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout 21,385 2.5% $ 689,232 17,434 1.9% $ 567,908 Comp Time 9,204 1.1% $ 266,393 7,689 0.9% $ 232,192 Personal 1,909 0.2% $ 57,643 3,544 0.4% $ 117,579 Leave Without Pay 3,630 0.4% $ - 2,984 0.3% $ - Other (description below) 22,002 2.5% $ 758,850 30,121 3.4% $ 1,102,810 Other includes: pay adjustments, military differential pay, training, committee meetings, worker compensation tracking/adjustments, etc. Other Activity Number of Pay Periods 26 26 Number of Payroll Checks & Direct Deposits Issued 9,614 10,151 Number of Pension Checks Issued 3,038 3,045 Total Pension Benefits Paid - Defined Benefit Plan $ 5,212,267 $ 5,221,593 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Number of Check Vouchers 5,856 6,295 Number of EFT Vouchers 2,405 2,614 Vouchers Dollar Amount Disbursed $ 80,281,328 $ 73,007,738 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY ACTIVITY LEVELS Contingency & Warehouse Stock 3,500,000 1440 3,000,000 1430 2,500,000 1420 2,000,000 1410 Total Dollar Value 1,500,000 1400 Total Line Items 1,000,000 500,000 1390 0 1380 Value: $2,652,972.76 Line Items: 1,399 Fuel Use Unleaded: 12,501.3 gallons Diesel: 6,738.6 gallons Total Cost: $ 32,289.40 2

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report - June 2016 (Preliminary) General Fund Summary Revised 100% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 3,977,500 $ 4,820,400 $ 4,820,414 $ (14) 100.0% Revenues Court of Chancery Fees 1,065,100 1,090,400 1,239,300 (148,900) 113.7% Police Extra Duty, Fines & Revenue 1,235,300 1,112,900 1,197,813 (84,913) 107.6% Franchise Fees 672,300 682,300 510,633 171,667 74.8% Grants 623,500 623,500 522,561 100,939 83.8% Intrafund Services 5,231,200 5,006,900 5,050,092 (43,192) 100.9% Library & Recreation Revenues 671,000 528,600 602,851 (74,251) 114.0% Licenses & Permits 2,861,300 2,908,300 3,211,644 (303,344) 110.4% Property Taxes (Includes BID Revenue) (1) 12,894,200 12,833,500 12,846,772 (13,272) 100.1% Miscellaneous Revenues 57,700 196,600 232,862 (36,262) 118.4% Sanitation Revenues 2,580,000 2,530,000 2,527,478 2,522 99.9% Garrison Farm Rent Revenue 93,700 93,900 93,858 42 100.0% Transfers-In from Special Funds & Utilities Municipal Street Aid Fund 564,200 673,100 673,345 (245) 100.0% Civil Traffic Penalties 450,000 480,000 499,226 (19,226) 104.0% Transfer Taxes 1,340,000 2,090,200 2,188,606 (98,406) 104.7% Verizon & Other Reserves 63,200 63,200 51,800 11,400 82.0% Police Grants/Extra Duty 74,400 172,700 159,617 13,083 92.4% Water/Wastewater Fund 850,000 850,000 850,000 - 100.0% Electric Fund 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 - 100.0% Total Revenues 41,327,100 41,936,100 42,458,458 (522,358) 101.2% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 45,304,600 $ 46,756,500 $ 47,278,872 $ (522,372) 101.1% Expenditures City Clerk & Council $ 501,500 $ 496,400 $ 467,669 $ 28,731 94.2% Mayor, City Manager & Human Resources 1,210,300 1,363,400 1,342,101 21,299 98.4% Police & Police Extra Duty 15,761,400 16,557,500 16,623,763 (66,263) 100.4% Public Services 4,669,500 4,522,900 4,350,403 172,497 96.2% Engineering 181,400 173,400 166,579 6,821 96.1% Procurement & Inventory, Facilities Mgmt., Fleet Maint. 2,036,200 2,022,500 1,997,481 25,019 98.8% Planning, Inspections, Life Safety, Code Enf., & Economic Dev. 2,338,300 2,421,200 2,349,518 71,682 97.0% Finance, Info Tech & Customer Services 2,803,400 2,700,100 2,617,658 82,442 96.9% Library & Recreation 2,239,500 2,179,200 2,138,913 40,287 98.2% Fire Department 745,400 735,400 687,479 47,921 93.5% Assessor 234,800 240,700 237,364 3,336 98.6% Contribution to DDP 70,000 70,000 70,000 - 100.0% Miscellaneous Grant Expense 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% Other Employment Expenses 520,100 43,300 - 43,300 0.0% Bank & CC Fees 15,000 10,600 7,346 3,254 69.3% Insurance 690,000 690,000 680,148 9,852 98.6% New Street Property Acquisitions - 240,400 240,362 38 100.0% OPEB - Retiree’s Health Care Contribution 1,895,600 1,567,700 1,567,700 - 100.0% Police Pension Trust Contribution - State Grant 500,000 500,000 415,128 84,872 83.0% Appropriation to Employee Pension Fund - 594,300 594,300 - 100.0% Appropriation to Police Pension Fund 570,000 676,500 676,500 - 100.0% Street Lights 797,700 797,700 804,246 (6,546) 100.8% Debt Service 660,800 669,400 672,389 (2,989) 100.4% Transfers Out Capital Asset Reserve - 229,600 229,600 - 100.0% Inventory Write-offs 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 100.0% Capital Projects Fund 2,625,400 2,625,400 2,625,400 - 100.0% Verizon Reserve 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 100.0% Uncollectibles: Trash & Other 50,000 50,000 350,000 (300,000) 700.0% Total Expenditures 41,201,300 42,262,600 41,972,047 290,553 99.3% Budget Balance -Working Capital (Unaudited) 4,103,300 4,493,900 5,306,825 (812,925) 118.1% Total Budget Balance & Expenditures $ 45,304,600 $ 46,756,500 $ 47,278,872 $ (522,372) 101.1% Reserve Balances (Unaudited) Contingency $ 720,300 $ 731,000 $ 732,833 (1) Property Taxes are the taxes billed and not cash received. The outstanding receivable balance as of 6/30/16 is $112,778 as compared to $159,782 in June 2015. 3

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report - June 2016 (Preliminary) Water/Wastewater Fund Summary Revised 100% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Water $ 861,600 $ 1,072,900 $ 1,072,915 $ (15) 100.0% Beginning Balance - Wastewater 293,400 206,900 206,894 6 100.0% 1,155,000 1,279,800 1,279,809 (9) 100.0% Revenues Water Fees 6,200,000 5,366,600 5,457,061 (90,461) 101.7% Wastewater Fees 3,728,000 3,823,800 3,745,497 78,303 98.0% Wastewater Treatment Services 3,026,500 2,997,600 2,936,831 60,769 98.0% Groundwater Inflow Adjustment 1,864,300 1,965,600 1,878,057 87,543 95.5% Water Tank Space Leases 341,900 341,900 337,989 3,911 98.9% Miscellaneous Service Fee 67,000 66,200 74,190 (7,990) 112.1% Impact Fees - Water 250,000 222,400 238,030 (15,630) 107.0% Impact Fees - Wastewater 250,000 253,400 207,516 45,884 81.9% Total Revenues 15,727,700 15,037,500 14,875,171 162,329 98.9% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 16,882,700 $ 16,317,300 $ 16,154,980 $ 162,320 99.0% Expenses Water/Wastewater Operating Divisions Engineering & Inspection $ 517,500 $ 512,500 $ 499,239 $ 13,261 97.4% Water Department 673,300 650,900 618,676 32,224 95.0% Water Treatment Plant 1,910,000 1,743,100 1,642,140 100,960 94.2% Wastewater Department 968,600 840,600 773,575 67,025 92.0% Kent County Treatment Charge 4,130,000 4,130,000 3,894,341 235,659 94.3% Intrafund Service Fees 1,492,700 1,420,200 1,422,049 (1,849) 100.1% Retiree's Health Care 178,600 60,200 60,200 - 100.0% Debt Service 1,132,100 1,132,400 1,132,410 (10) 100.0% Other Employment Expenses 20,000 142,300 - 142,300 0.0% Bank & CC Fees 46,200 25,000 23,481 1,519 93.9% Transfers Out General Fund 850,000 850,000 850,000 - 100.0% Contingency Reserve 32,000 32,000 32,000 - 100.0% Appropriation to Pension Fund - 248,400 248,400 - 100.0% Water I & E Fund 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 - 100.0% Wastewater I & E Fund 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 100.0% Impact Fee Reserve - Wastewater - - 54,389 (54,389) 0.0% Total Expenses 15,251,000 15,087,600 14,550,900 536,700 96.4% Budget Balances Budget Balance - Work. Cap Water (Unaudited) 1,048,600 566,500 884,647 (318,147) 156.2% Budget Balance - Work. Cap WW (Unaudited) 583,100 663,200 719,431 (56,231) 108.5% Total Budget Balances (Unaudited) 1,631,700 1,229,700 1,604,078 (374,378) 130.4% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 16,882,700 $ 16,317,300 $ 16,154,978 $ 162,322 99.0% Reserve Balances (Unaudited) Contingency-Water $ 137,700 $ 138,000 $ 117,894 Contingency-Wastewater $ 191,100 $ 191,600 $ 214,629 Impact Fee Reserve - Water $ 202,000 $ 430,700 $ 434,156 Impact Fee Reserve - Wastewater $ 1,309,500 $ 1,590,900 $ 3,075,416 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.20) 4.30 4.30 4.31 4

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report - June 2016 (Preliminary) Electric Revenue Fund Summary Revised 100% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 6,177,600 $ 8,337,500 $ 8,337,466 $ 34 100.0% Revenues Direct Sales to Customers 78,279,200 78,493,800 77,844,937 648,863 99.2% Utility Tax 1,281,100 1,309,600 1,309,701 (101) 100.0% Weyandt Hall Rents 202,600 202,600 238,862 (36,262) 117.9% Miscellaneous Revenues 725,200 1,039,400 972,711 66,689 93.6% Interest Earnings 47,900 35,000 65,702 (30,702) 187.7% Transfer from Rate Stabilization 3,000,000 750,000 750,000 - 100.0% Total Revenues 83,536,000 81,830,400 81,181,913 648,487 99.2% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 89,713,600 $ 90,167,900 $ 89,519,379 $ 648,521 99.3% Expenses Power Supply & Generation Hedged Energy $ 23,402,600 $ 23,402,600 $ 23,610,686 $ (208,086) 100.9% Power Supply Management 996,000 996,000 996,000 - 100.0% Capacity Charges 10,225,100 10,225,100 10,574,198 (349,098) 103.4% Dover Sun Park Energy 2,313,900 2,313,900 1,981,195 332,705 85.6% Renewal Energy Credits (Incl. Solar) 1,036,800 1,036,800 313,930 722,870 30.3% RGGI 175,000 175,000 66,080 108,920 37.8% PJM Charges - Energy 7,966,100 7,966,100 2,960,596 5,005,504 37.2% PJM Charges - Transmission & Fees 7,932,500 7,932,500 5,247,660 2,684,840 66.2% Total Power Supply 54,048,000 54,048,000 45,750,345 8,297,655 84.6% Plant Operations 6,434,600 6,382,900 5,714,785 668,115 89.5% Generation Fuels 1,167,300 1,167,300 1,218,659 (51,359) 104.4% Capacity Credits (10,472,100) (10,472,100) (9,827,426) (644,674) 93.8% PJM Spot Market Energy (1,708,300) (1,708,300) (1,002,972) (705,328) 58.7% PJM Credits (360,000) (360,000) (617,904) 257,904 171.6% Total Generation (4,938,500) (4,990,200) (4,514,858) (475,342) 90.5% Total Power Supply & Generation 49,109,500 49,057,800 41,235,487 7,822,313 84.1% Electric Operating Divisions: Transmission/Distribution 4,068,600 3,437,300 3,273,616 163,684 95.2% Electrical Engineering 1,335,800 1,120,900 1,064,795 56,105 95.0% Administration 839,300 834,300 709,297 125,003 85.0% Meter Reading 360,500 363,200 358,571 4,629 98.7% Systems Operations 679,800 601,500 593,428 8,072 98.7% Intrafund Services 3,738,500 3,586,200 3,628,043 (41,843) 101.2% Utility Tax 1,281,100 1,309,600 1,420,887 (111,287) 108.5% OPEB Trust Contribution - Unfunded Liability 1,030,000 - - - 0.0% Retirees Health Care 537,800 57,700 57,700 - 100.0% Interest on Deposits 20,500 20,500 18,283 2,217 89.2% Green Energy Payment to DEMEC 128,000 128,000 137,108 (9,108) 107.1% Accounts Receivable Write-Offs 200,000 200,000 200,000 - 100.0% Other Employee Expenses 72,000 353,400 - 353,400 0.0% Bank & CC Fees 242,300 259,300 258,388 912 99.6% Debt Service 3,402,000 1,617,700 1,621,463 (3,763) 100.2% Transfers Out: General Fund 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 - 100.0% Electric Improvement & Extension Fund 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,665,375 (165,375) 104.7% Rate Stabilization Reserve - 394,800 394,800 - 100.0% Transfer to Insurance Reserve 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 100.0% Transfer to Contingency Reserve 13,000 13,000 13,000 - 100.0% Total Expenses 80,568,700 76,865,200 68,660,241 8,204,959 89.3% Budget Balance - Work. Capital (Unaudited) 9,144,900 13,302,700 20,859,138 (7,556,438) 156.8% Total Budget Balance & Expenses $ 89,713,600 $ 90,167,900 $ 89,519,379 $ 648,521 99.3% Reserve Balances (Unaudited) Contingency Reserve $ 844,600 $ 841,900 $ 849,980 Insurance Reserve $ 758,700 $ 756,300 $ 763,515 Rate Stabilization Reserve $ 4,602,600 $ 7,207,100 $ 7,269,177 Bond Coverage Ratio (Covenant 1.25) 2.62 7.29 5.26 Megawatt Hours Sold & Purchased Sales to Customers MWh (excluding Street Light MWh) 712,390 712,390 705,125 99.0% Sales per MWh $ 109.88 $ 109.88 $ 110.40 100.5% Purchased/Generated MWh 741,522 741,522 740,871 99.9% All In MWh Supply & Generation $ 66.23 $ 66.23 $ 55.66 84.0% 5

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report - June 2016 (Preliminary) General Capital Project Fund Summary Revised 100% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Projects $ 154,800 $ 2,926,700 $ 2,926,738 $ (38) 100.0% Revenues State Grant - Other - 80,500 63,890 16,610 79.4% Interest Earnings 5,000 5,000 5,614 (614) 112.3% Income from Sale of Assets 20,300 120,800 112,568 8,232 93.2% Transfer from General Fund for Projects 2,625,400 2,625,400 2,625,400 - 100.0% Miscellaneous Receipts (2) - 74,700 77,663 (2,963) 104.0% Total Revenues 2,650,700 2,906,400 2,885,135 21,265 99.3% Total Beginning Balance & Revenue $ 2,805,500 $ 5,833,100 $ 5,811,873 $ 21,227 99.6% Expenditures Fire $ 145,600 $ 445,800 $ 445,594 $ 206 100.0% Grounds Maintenance 201,100 185,200 68,352 116,848 36.9% Recreation - 73,900 7,850 66,050 10.6% Life Safety 55,700 55,700 56,411 (711) 101.3% Police 262,100 302,700 251,602 51,098 83.1% Streets 1,428,500 3,735,000 2,409,116 1,325,884 64.5% Sanitation 449,000 449,000 402,484 46,516 89.6% City Manager 24,700 24,700 - 24,700 0.0% Fleet Maintenance 84,000 84,500 84,234 266 99.7% Transfer to Capital Asset Reserve - 92,700 92,700 - 100.0% Transfer to Parkland Reserve - - 33,000 (33,000) 0.0% Total Expenditures 2,650,700 5,449,200 3,851,343 1,597,857 70.7% Budget Balance - Bond Proceeds - - - - 0.0% Current Year Balance - Projects (Unaudited) 154,800 383,900 1,960,530 (1,576,630) 510.7% Budget Balance - Library Project - - - - 0.0% Total Budget Balance & Expenditures $ 2,805,500 $ 5,833,100 $ 5,811,873 $ 21,227 99.6% Reserve Balances (Unaudited) Capital Asset Replacement Reserve $ 916,500 $ 1,251,300 $ 1,253,780 Parkland/Recreation $ 296,700 $ 324,900 $ 359,364 (2) Reimb for Village of Cannon Mills & Sheldrake Circle 6

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report - June 2016 (Preliminary) Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund Summary Revised 100% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance - Water $ 833,500 $ 4,990,300 $ 4,990,310 $ (10) 100.0% Beginning Balance - Wastewater $ 1,027,600 $ 4,551,700 $ 4,551,722 $ (22) 100.0% Revenues Grants Receipts - 20,300 18,952 1,348 93.4% Miscellaneous Receipts - 61,400 70,247 (8,847) 114.4% Interest Earnings 25,000 69,900 119,966 (50,066) 171.6% Transfer from Operating Fund for Water 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 - 100.0% Transfer from Operating Fund for Wastewater 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 100.0% Transfer from Impact Fee Reserve - Wastewater 165,000 165,000 20,800 144,200 12.6% Total Revenues 3,490,000 3,616,600 3,546,444 70,156 98.1% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 5,351,100 $ 13,158,600 $ 13,088,476 $ 70,124 99.5% Expenses Bond Issue Costs $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Engineering & Inspection - - - - 0.0% Water $ 2,028,600 $ 5,396,100 $ 1,717,187 $ 3,678,913 31.8% Wastewater 1,822,100 5,299,100 2,159,386 3,139,714 40.8% Water Treatment Plant - 330,900 233,278 97,622 70.5% Bank Fees - - - - 0.0% Transfer to Impact Fee Reserve - Wastewater - - 1,271,343 (1,271,343) 0.0% Total Expenses 3,850,700 11,026,100 5,381,194 5,644,906 48.8% Budget Balance Water - Working Capital (Unaudited) 617,400 1,179,900 3,690,800 (2,510,900) 312.8% Budget Balance Wastewater - Working Capital (Unaudited) 883,000 952,600 4,016,482 (3,063,882) 421.6% Total Budget Balances 5,351,100 13,158,600 14,359,819 (1,201,219) 109.1% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 5,351,100 $ 13,158,600 $ 13,088,476 $ 70,124 99.5% Reserve Balances (Unaudited) Capital Asset Replacement - Water $ 518,500 $ 514,600 $ 519,543 Capital Asset Replacement - Wastewater $ 515,200 $ 513,400 $ 518,354 7

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report - June 2016 (Preliminary) Electric Improvement & Extension Fund Summary Revised 100% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 3,623,600 $ 7,095,300 $ 7,095,270 $ 30 100.0% Revenues Interest Earnings 26,700 57,900 94,620 (36,720) 163.4% Transfer from 2010 Bond Reserve - 2,108,000 1,942,628 165,372 92.2% Miscellaneous Receipts - 15,000 - 15,000 0.0% Transfer from Electric Revenue Fund 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,665,375 (165,375) 104.7% Income from Sale of Assets - - 6,200 (6,200) 0.0% General Service Billing 1,900,000 1,900,000 327,453 1,572,547 17.2% Total Revenues 5,426,700 7,580,900 6,036,276 1,544,624 79.6% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 9,050,300 $ 14,676,200 $ 13,131,546 $ 1,544,654 89.5% Expenses Electric Generation $ 1,655,000 $ 2,299,800 $ 964,880 $ 1,334,920 42.0% Transmission/Distribution 2,887,600 3,524,900 1,104,911 2,419,989 31.3% Electrical Engineering 1,724,300 3,288,000 1,740,110 1,547,890 52.9% Meter Reading - 23,000 - 23,000 0.0% Total Expenses 6,266,900 9,135,700 3,809,901 5,325,799 41.7% Budget Balance Bond - Work. Capital 2,783,400 5,540,500 9,321,645 (3,781,145) 168.2% Total Budget Balance & Expenses $ 9,050,300 $ 14,676,200 $ 13,131,546 $ 1,544,654 89.5% Reserve Balances (Unaudited) Depreciation Reserve $ 10,066,400 $ 10,083,600 $ 10,130,667 Future Capacity Reserve $ 10,218,000 $ 10,134,700 $ 10,283,292 City of Dover Electric Revenue Fund FY16 - White Oak Solar Park Incremental Cost Original Budget YTD Balance Power Supply & Generation Dover Sun Park - Energy $ 2,313,861 $ 2,280,044 $ 33,817 Dover Sun Park - REC's 363,381 304,435 58,946 Total Power Supply Cost 2,677,242 2,584,478 92,764 Non-Solar Power Supply Cost (1,496,447) (1,024,520) (471,927) Incremental Energy Cost $ 1,180,795 $ 1,559,958 $ (379,163) Revenues Customer Sales - Electricity (93,900) (96,701) 2,801 Rent Receipts (93,700) (61,468) (32,232) Total Revenues (187,600) (158,169) (29,431) Incremental Sun Park Cost $ 993,195 $ 1,401,789 $ (408,593) MWh Purchased/Generated - Solar 18,159.000 17,400.544 MWh $ Solar Energy $ 127.42 $ 131.03 Solar REC's MWh 2,275.000 MWh $ Solar REC (one month lag)* $ 133.82 8

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report - June 2016 (Preliminary) Community Transportation Improvement Fund Revised 100% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 144,000 $ 57,800 $ 57,798 $ 2 100.0% Revenues Grants Revenue 500,000 839,300 574,559 264,741 68.5% Interest Earned 500 500 145 355 29.0% Total Revenues 500,500 839,800 574,704 265,096 68.4% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 644,500 $ 897,600 $ 632,502 $ 265,098 70.5% Expenses Program Expenses - Del Dot $ 644,000 $ 805,500 $ 541,803 $ 263,697 67.3% Total Expenses 644,000 805,500 541,803 263,697 67.3% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 500 92,100 90,699 1,401 98.5% Total Budget Balance & Expenses $ 644,500 $ 897,600 $ 632,502 $ 265,098 70.5% 9

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report - June 2016 (Preliminary) Police Grant Funds Revised 100% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 125,000 $ 154,900 $ 154,944 $ (44) 100.0% Revenues State & Federal Grants Received 527,300 1,111,900 960,750 151,150 86.4% Interest Earnings - - 2,021 (2,021) 0.0% Total Revenues 527,300 1,111,900 962,771 149,129 86.6% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 652,300 $ 1,266,800 $ 1,117,715 $ 149,085 88.2% Expenses Cadet Program $ 80,300 $ 80,300 $ 76,423 $ 3,877 95.2% Equipment & Program Supplies 410,600 384,600 177,888 206,712 46.3% Technology Equipment 20,000 20,000 2,825 17,175 14.1% Telephone/Fax 15,000 15,000 19,690 (4,690) 131.3% Training/Conference/Food/Travel 17,000 72,600 80,203 (7,603) 110.5% Consulting/Audit Fees 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 0.0% Contractual services - 299,400 90,714 208,686 30.3% Operating Transfers - Out 74,400 172,700 - 172,700 0.0% Total Expenses 618,300 1,045,600 447,743 597,857 42.8% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 34,000 221,200 669,972 (448,772) 302.9% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 652,300 $ 1,266,800 $ 1,117,715 $ 149,085 88.2% City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report - June 2016 (Preliminary) Library Grant Fund Revised 100% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 17,300 $ 30,600 $ 30,571 $ 29 99.9% Revenues Grants Received 278,900 305,500 293,835 11,665 96.2% Federal Grants 2,500 2,500 2,500 - 100.0% Total Revenues 281,400 308,000 296,335 11,665 96.2% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 298,700 $ 338,600 $ 326,906 $ 11,694 96.5% Expenses Program Expenses/Supplies-State Grants $ 24,100 $ 27,500 $ 25,544 $ 1,956 92.9% Program Expenses/Supplies-Federal Grants 2,500 2,500 2,500 - 100.0% Office Supplies 24,000 30,800 24,413 6,387 79.3% Printing/Duplicating 13,200 12,500 12,306 194 98.4% Postage 100 100 43 57 43.0% Books 129,200 133,300 129,605 3,695 97.2% Furniture 3,100 7,000 9,827 (2,827) 140.4% Audio Visual Supplies 75,100 77,200 74,127 3,073 96.0% Training/Conference/Food/Travel 2,000 8,800 3,303 5,497 37.5% Contractual Services 900 - - - 0.0% Office Equipment/Repairs & Maintenance 6,000 6,300 5,314 986 84.3% Other Equipment - Lease 1,200 2,000 1,850 150 92.5% Total Expenses 281,400 308,000 288,832 19,168 93.8% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 17,300 30,600 38,074 (7,474) 124.4% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 298,700 $ 338,600 $ 326,906 $ 11,694 96.5% 10

City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report - June 2016 (Preliminary) After School Program/Substance Abuse Prevention Fund Revised 100% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 41,000 $ 98,200 $ 98,181 $ 19 100.0% Revenues Grants Received 55,700 28,000 28,030 (30) 100.1% Recreation Revenue 33,000 50,000 65,145 (15,145) 130.3% Total Revenues 88,700 78,000 93,175 (15,175) 119.5% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 129,700 $ 176,200 $ 191,356 $ (15,156) 108.6% Expenses Temporary Help/Benefits $ 60,200 $ 60,200 $ 57,228 $ 2,972 95.1% Program Expenses/Supplies 55,700 55,700 34,355 21,345 61.7% Total Expenses 115,900 115,900 91,583 24,317 79.0% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 13,800 60,300 99,773 (39,473) 165.5% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 129,700 $ 176,200 $ 191,356 $ (15,156) 108.6% City of Dover Finance Department Monthly Report - June 2016 (Preliminary) CDBG Fund Revised 100% Budget Budget YTD Balance Budget Beginning Balance $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 87,290 $ (85,190) 4156.7% Revenues Grants Received 265,400 272,800 256,662 16,138 94.1% Total Revenues 265,400 272,800 256,662 16,138 94.1% Total Beginning Balance & Revenues $ 267,500 $ 274,900 $ 343,952 $ (69,052) 125.1% Expenses Closing Cost/Down Payment Program $ 60,000 $ 60,900 $ 60,000 $ 900 98.5% Connection Community Supply Program 7,400 7,400 4,952 2,448 66.9% Dover Interfaith Ministry 27,000 27,000 27,000 - 100.0% MHDC Emergency Home Repair 35,300 35,300 12,989 22,311 36.8% MHDC Homeowner Rehab 52,900 52,900 39,506 13,394 74.7% Habitat For Humanity 40,000 40,000 37,047 2,953 92.6% NCALL Research Inc. - 6,500 5,500 1,000 84.6% Peoples Place 6,800 6,800 6,722 78 98.9% Salaries 36,000 36,000 37,444 (1,444) 104.0% NSP Expense - - 90,460 (90,460) 0.0% Total Expenses 265,400 272,800 321,620 (48,820) 117.9% Budget Balance - Working Capital (Unaudited) 2,100 2,100 19,838 (17,738) 944.7% Total Budget Balances & Expenses $ 267,500 $ 274,900 $ 341,458 $ (66,558) 124.2% 11

MONTHLY REPORT JUNE 2016

Date Range: From 06/01/2016 to 06/30/2016 Incident Run Log Company: All Companies Dover Fire Department Sorted by: Not selected Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type Lgth 06/01/2016 30046 2016-000493 20:36 1289 WALKER RD A16 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 0.3 06/02/2016 30046 2016-000494 10:58 1200 N DUPONT HWY Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.0 06/02/2016 30046 2016-000495 21:17 N DUPONT HWY & KINGS HWY N E Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 0.5 06/03/2016 30046 2016-000496 09:39 1350 N DUPONT HWY Unintentional transmission of alarm, other 0.4 06/03/2016 30046 2016-000497 19:04 255 WEBBS LN H Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.2 06/04/2016 30046 2016-000498 01:20 165 WILLIS RD B Carbon monoxide incident 0.3 06/04/2016 30046 2016-000499 02:13 Bay Rd Assist police or other governmental agency 1.1 06/04/2016 30046 2016-000500 03:21 SOUTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD Dispatched & canceled en route 0.2 06/05/2016 30046 2016-000501 01:15 1155 WALKER RD Cooking fire, confined to container 0.4 06/05/2016 30046 2016-000502 01:22 835 BAY RD Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 06/05/2016 30046 2016-000503 08:25 430 COLLEGE RD 400 0.2 06/05/2016 30046 2016-000504 08:45 655 N DUPONT HWY Cooking fire, confined to container 0.3 06/07/2016 30046 2016-000505 10:43 FORREST AVE Motor vehicle accident with injuries 0.3 06/07/2016 30046 2016-000506 11:09 293 S SAULSBURY RD Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, other 1.2 06/07/2016 30046 2016-000507 14:20 100 CAMPUS DR Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 06/07/2016 30046 2016-000508 15:07 150 SAULSBURY RD Good intent call, other 0.3 06/08/2016 30046 2016-000509 02:40 S QUEEN ST Rescue, EMS incident, other 0.3 06/08/2016 30046 2016-000510 03:43 215 COMMERCE ST. Assist invalid 1.9 06/08/2016 30046 2016-000511 11:05 22 N QUEEN ST Good intent call, other 0.3 06/08/2016 30046 2016-000512 11:23 2056 GENERALS WAY Public service 0.4 06/08/2016 30046 2016-000513 11:45 850 S STATE ST Good intent call, other 0.2 06/08/2016 30046 2016-000514 12:09 39 N AMERICAN AVE Power line down 0.1 06/08/2016 30046 2016-000515 12:52 139 BALTUSROL RD Good intent call, other 0.5 06/08/2016 30046 2016-000516 15:59 141 OLD FORGE DR False alarm or false call, other 0.3 06/08/2016 30046 2016-000517 21:25 1700 N DUPONT HWY BLDG D Carbon monoxide incident 0.3 06/09/2016 30046 2016-000518 08:47 805 RIVER RD Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle 0.3 06/09/2016 30046 2016-000519 12:22 155 S BRADFORD ST Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.1 06/09/2016 30046 2016-000520 17:49 160 GREENTREE DR Good intent call, other 0.1 06/10/2016 30046 2016-000521 08:25 209 S STATE ST Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 06/10/2016 30046 2016-000522 12:53 W. NORTH STREET Motor vehicle accident with injuries 0.2 06/10/2016 30046 2016-000523 16:33 S DUPONT HIGHWAY Grass fire 0.2 06/10/2016 30046 2016-000524 21:40 631 S STATE ST Good intent call, other 0.3 06/11/2016 30046 2016-000525 17:29 1365 N DUPONT HWY Good intent call, other 0.3 06/11/2016 30046 2016-000526 18:51 MCKEE ROAD Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 0.3 06/11/2016 30046 2016-000527 19:42 5 S. QUEEN STREET Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.2 06/12/2016 30046 2016-000528 07:30 WEBBS LA & S DUPONT HWY Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 0.4 06/12/2016 30046 2016-000529 12:37 800 N STATE ST Dispatched & canceled en route 0.1 06/12/2016 30046 2016-000530 12:48 1001 FORREST AVE Natural vegetation fire, other 0.2 06/12/2016 30046 2016-000531 14:16 143 OLD FORGE DR Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 06/12/2016 30046 2016-000532 17:30 162 VIOLA DRIVE Assist invalid 3.0 06/12/2016 30046 2016-000533 19:03 1051 SOUTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD Outside rubbish fire, other 0.0 06/12/2016 30046 2016-000534 19:38 49 ROUNDTREE DR WEST Good intent call, other 0.0 06/12/2016 30046 2016-000535 19:51 293 S SAULSBURY RD Public service 0.6 06/13/2016 30046 2016-000536 12:04 1220 FARMVIEW DR Building fire 1.5 06/13/2016 30046 2016-000537 14:17 1220 FARMVIEW DRIVE Smoke or odor removal 0.4 06/13/2016 30046 2016-000538 15:07 1001 FORREST AVE Outside rubbish fire, other 0.2 06/14/2016 30046 2016-000539 18:11 411 LEGISLATIVE AVE Outside rubbish fire, other 0.3 06/14/2016 30046 2016-000540 19:15 120 N STATE ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.5 06/14/2016 30046 2016-000541 20:31 22 VIRGINIA AVE Special outside fire, other 0.3 06/15/2016 30046 2016-000542 14:20 992 WHATCOAT DR Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.2 06/16/2016 30046 2016-000543 03:10 213 N BRADFORD ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.0 06/16/2016 30046 2016-000544 14:27 914 BOGGS DR Breakdown of light ballast 0.5 06/16/2016 30046 2016-000545 18:31 PUNCHERUN No incident found on arrival at dispatch address 0.3 06/16/2016 30046 2016-000546 22:09 SR1 & WHITE OAK RD OVERPASS Motor vehicle accident with injuries 0.4 06/17/2016 30046 2016-000547 13:16 2735 FORREST AVE Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.5 06/17/2016 30046 2016-000548 22:14 26 STONEY DR Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 06/18/2016 30046 2016-000549 12:41 S. DUPONT HIGHWAY Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 0.3 06/18/2016 30046 2016-000550 13:07 SR1 & M/M 103 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/18/2016 30046 2016-000551 16:12 599 PERSIMONE TREE LANE Smoke scare, odor of smoke 0.3 Date: 07/27/2016 Page: 1 Time:08:14

Date FDID Incident# Alarm ### Address Suite Type Lgth 06/18/2016 30046 2016-000552 18:17 1037 N DUPONT HWY Fire, other 0.3 06/18/2016 30046 2016-000553 18:37 1131 N DUPONT HWY Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/18/2016 30046 2016-000554 18:37 1131 N DUPONT HWY Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/18/2016 30046 2016-000555 18:52 25 BALTRAY RD Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 06/19/2016 30046 2016-000556 01:40 835 BAY RD Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 06/19/2016 30046 2016-000557 03:04 57 S NEW ST CO detector activation due to malfunction 0.4 06/19/2016 30046 2016-000558 04:11 500 PERSIMMON TREE LA 4 System malfunction, other 0.3 06/19/2016 30046 2016-000559 05:13 77 STONEY DR Good intent call, other 0.4 06/20/2016 30046 2016-000560 09:06 1285 COLLEGE PARK DR Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional 0.6 06/20/2016 30046 2016-000561 10:54 1570 N DUPONT HWY Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional 0.0 06/20/2016 30046 2016-000562 22:59 1325 GARFIELD DR Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn 0.5 06/21/2016 30046 2016-000563 10:11 300 W WATER ST Carbon monoxide incident 1.4 06/21/2016 30046 2016-000564 13:14 N GOVERNORS AVE Motor vehicle accident with no injuries. 0.4 06/21/2016 30046 2016-000565 15:12 35 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA Water & ice-related rescue, other 0.2 06/18/2016 30046 2016-000566 12:50 1131 N DUPONT HWY Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/19/2016 30046 2016-000567 03:32 1131 N DUPONT HWY Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/19/2016 30046 2016-000568 06:13 1131 N DUPONT HWY Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/19/2016 30046 2016-000569 09:31 1131 N DUPONT HWY Medical assist, assist EMS crew 0.0 06/21/2016 30046 2016-000570 22:03 101 BABB DR 3306 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.5 06/22/2016 30046 2016-000571 14:16 1650 FORREST Good intent call, other 0.4 06/23/2016 30046 2016-000572 09:58 120 GREENTREE DR Dispatched & canceled en route 0.1 06/23/2016 30046 2016-000573 09:58 369 BEECHWOOD AVE Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.6 06/23/2016 30046 2016-000574 13:06 9 PAR HAVEN DR C Smoke scare, odor of smoke 0.5 06/23/2016 30046 2016-000575 14:55 97 COMMERCE WAY 101 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.4 06/23/2016 30046 2016-000576 17:07 1137 Woodstock court Unauthorized burning 0.4 06/23/2016 30046 2016-000577 19:21 213 N BRADFORD ST Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.1 06/24/2016 30046 2016-000578 10:30 105 HOLMES ST Water or steam leak 0.4 06/24/2016 30046 2016-000579 13:07 655 N DUPONT HWY False alarm or false call, other 0.5 06/24/2016 30046 2016-000580 20:24 491 FIDDLERS GREEN Medical assist, assist EMS crew 1.1 06/25/2016 30046 2016-000581 02:23 K22 Country Club Apts J Cooking fire, confined to container 0.5 06/25/2016 30046 2016-000582 11:27 11 FAIRWAY LAKE DR Building fire 0.4 06/26/2016 30046 2016-000583 13:41 39 PAR HAVEN DR E Water problem, other 0.8 06/26/2016 30046 2016-000584 18:56 490 N DUPONT HWY Motor vehicle accident with injuries 0.2 06/27/2016 30046 2016-000585 15:01 1180 WALKER RD System malfunction, other 0.2 06/27/2016 30046 2016-000586 23:00 119 SAXTON RD Cooking fire, confined to container 1.1 06/28/2016 30046 2016-000587 05:23 341 SAULSBURY RD Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 0.7 06/28/2016 30046 2016-000588 08:13 1102 S GOVERNORS AVE Smoke scare, odor of smoke 0.3 06/28/2016 30046 2016-000589 09:12 51 WEBBS LN C Trash or rubbish fire, contained 0.8 06/29/2016 30046 2016-000590 04:46 213 N BRADFORD ST Dispatched & canceled en route 0.2 06/29/2016 30046 2016-000591 07:21 14 S. Governors Ave Carbon monoxide incident 0.5 06/30/2016 30046 2016-000592 07:07 18 GREENWICH DR Water or steam leak 0.5 06/30/2016 30046 2016-000593 10:08 516 JEFFERIC BLVD Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 06/30/2016 30046 2016-000594 12:06 CECIL ST Passenger vehicle fire 0.5 06/30/2016 30046 2016-000595 13:13 341 SAULSBURY RD Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 0.3 06/30/2016 30046 2016-000596 17:25 1200 N DUPONT HWY Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 0.0 06/30/2016 30046 2016-000597 19:28 177 WILLIS RD Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other 0.6 Total Number of Incidents: 105 Total Length of Incidents: 41.6 Hours

11:45 AM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 07/26/16 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail June 2016 Type Date Num Name Ordinary Income/Expense Expense Apparatus Repairs & Maintenance Check 06/12/2016 1582 Atlantic Emergency Solutions Check 06/12/2016 1589 Dover Automotive Check 06/12/2016 1590 Kunkel Auto Supply Check 06/12/2016 1590 Kunkel Auto Supply Check 06/12/2016 1590 Kunkel Auto Supply Check 06/12/2016 1590 Kunkel Auto Supply Check 06/25/2016 1601 Dover Automotive Check 06/25/2016 1601 Dover Automotive Check 06/30/2016 1603 Atlantic Emergency Solutions Check 06/30/2016 1604 Awards, Trophies & More Check 06/30/2016 1609 Witmer Public Safety Total Apparatus Repairs & Maintenance Building Maintenance Supplies Check 06/12/2016 1585 City of Dover Total Building Maintenance Supplies Electricity Check 06/12/2016 1586 City of Dover Utility Check 06/12/2016 1587 City of Dover Check 06/30/2016 1611 City of Dover Utility Total Electricity Gasoline Check 06/12/2016 1585 City of Dover Check 06/12/2016 1585 City of Dover Total Gasoline Heating Expenses- Gas Check 06/12/2016 1583 Chesapeake Utilities Check 06/12/2016 1584 Chesapeake Utilities Check 06/30/2016 1607 Chesapeake Utilities Total Heating Expenses- Gas Medical Supplies & Physicals Check 06/30/2016 1608 Southeastern Emergency Equipment Total Medical Supplies & Physicals Office Supplies Check 06/12/2016 1585 City of Dover Check 06/25/2016 1602 Staples Total Office Supplies Other Equipment Repairs Page 1 of 9

11:45 AM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 07/26/16 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail June 2016 Type Date Num Name Check 06/25/2016 1599 Pasco of Dover Total Other Equipment Repairs Program Expenses Check 06/12/2016 1593 Witmer Public Safety Check 06/12/2016 1593 Witmer Public Safety Check 06/25/2016 1598 Municipal Emergency Services Check 06/25/2016 1600 Priority Dispatch Corporation Check 06/30/2016 1612 Witmer Public Safety Check 06/30/2016 1612 Witmer Public Safety Total Program Expenses Radio Repairs Check 06/12/2016 1591 Magnum Check 06/25/2016 1597 Magnum Total Radio Repairs Safety & Security Material Check 06/30/2016 1606 ARK SAFETY Total Safety & Security Material Small Tools Check 06/12/2016 1594 WL Construction Supply, Inc. Total Small Tools Telephone Check 06/12/2016 1585 City of Dover Check 06/12/2016 1585 City of Dover Check 06/12/2016 1595 Verizon Wireless Check 06/30/2016 1610 Verizon Wireless Total Telephone Training & Travel Expenses Check 06/12/2016 1588 Delaware State Fire School Check 06/12/2016 1588 Delaware State Fire School Check 06/30/2016 1605 Delaware State Fire School Check 06/30/2016 1605 Delaware State Fire School Total Training & Travel Expenses Uniforms Check 06/12/2016 1592 Municipal Emergency Services Check 06/25/2016 1596 Dover Army-Navy Store Total Uniforms Water/Sewer Check 06/12/2016 1586 City of Dover Utility Page 2 of 9

11:45 AM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 07/26/16 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail June 2016 Type Date Num Name Check 06/12/2016 1586 City of Dover Utility Check 06/12/2016 1587 City of Dover Check 06/30/2016 1611 City of Dover Utility Check 06/30/2016 1611 City of Dover Utility Total Water/Sewer Total Expense Net Ordinary Income Net Income Page 3 of 9

11:45 AM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 07/26/16 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail June 2016 Memo Clr Split Ordinary Income/Expense Expense Apparatus Repairs & Maintenance Invoice # 11361DEL- Ladder 2 window motor City Fund Account Inv # 800861- brake pads for B-9 City Fund Account Invoice # 056492915-detailer City Fund Account Invoice # 056493450- hyper wash City Fund Account Invoice # 056493445-aerso City Fund Account Invoice # 056494005-hyper wash City Fund Account Invoice # 801411 City Fund Account Invoice # 801752 City Fund Account Invoice # 11425DEL- Eng 6 drivers window City Fund Account Name plates for lockers City Fund Account Invoice # 1705404- Face Piece Cleaners City Fund Account Total Apparatus Repairs & Maintenance Building Maintenance Supplies 6 bags of stay dry material City Fund Account Total Building Maintenance Supplies Electricity Acct # 44343-32052 City Fund Account Acct # 44255-31966 City Fund Account Acct # 44343-32052 City Fund Account Total Electricity Gasoline April Unleaded Fuel charges City Fund Account April Bio-Diesel Fuel charges City Fund Account Total Gasoline Heating Expenses- Gas Station 1 from 05/03 to 06/02 City Fund Account Station 2 gas from 04/26 to 05/25 City Fund Account Station 2 from 05/25 to 06/27 City Fund Account Total Heating Expenses- Gas Medical Supplies & Physicals Invoice # 644356- AED Battery City Fund Account Total Medical Supplies & Physicals Office Supplies April Postage charges City Fund Account Invoice # 1578795561-1578795721-1578903851 City Fund Account Total Office Supplies Other Equipment Repairs Page 4 of 9

11:45 AM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 07/26/16 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail June 2016 Memo Clr Split Order # 34783/6 City Fund Account Total Other Equipment Repairs Program Expenses Inv # 1685666- MSA 6000 City Fund Account Inv # 1699717- fill station parts City Fund Account Invoice # IN1037364 City Fund Account Invoice # 129513- Maint. Agreement for annual cardset City Fund Account Invoice # 1702281- 5 " hose City Fund Account Invoice # 1706005- MSA Fill Station adapters City Fund Account Total Program Expenses Radio Repairs Impress Temple Transducer City Fund Account Resue door controls to radio console City Fund Account Total Radio Repairs Safety & Security Material Rope Rescue Equipment City Fund Account Total Safety & Security Material Small Tools Blue Rescue Master Diamond Blades City Fund Account Total Small Tools Telephone April Verizon charges City Fund Account April Cavalier charges City Fund Account IPAD cahrges from 04/21 to 05/20 City Fund Account IPAD charges from 05/21 to 06/20 City Fund Account Total Telephone Training & Travel Expenses Rope Rescue- Dickson City Fund Account Advance Veh Rescue- Dickson,Gartrell City Fund Account Inv # 16-3000- Structual & Vehicle Rescue City Fund Account Inv # 16-3001- Fire Ground Operations City Fund Account Total Training & Travel Expenses Uniforms Invoice # IN1034535- structual gloves City Fund Account 2 pr. shorts for Jacobs City Fund Account Total Uniforms Water/Sewer Acct # 44345-32054 City Fund Account Page 5 of 9

11:45 AM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 07/26/16 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail June 2016 Memo Clr Split Acct # 44341-32050 City Fund Account Acct # 44253-31964 City Fund Account Acct # 44345-32054 City Fund Account Acct # 44341-32050 City Fund Account Total Water/Sewer Total Expense Net Ordinary Income Net Income Page 6 of 9

11:45 AM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 07/26/16 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail June 2016 Amount Balance Ordinary Income/Expense Expense Apparatus Repairs & Maintenance 1,059.18 1,059.18 60.10 1,119.28 40.55 1,159.83 131.53 1,291.36 31.83 1,323.19 174.61 1,497.80 29.99 1,527.79 15.71 1,543.50 1,957.06 3,500.56 38.00 3,538.56 57.00 3,595.56 Total Apparatus Repairs & Maintenance 3,595.56 3,595.56 Building Maintenance Supplies 45.67 45.67 Total Building Maintenance Supplies 45.67 45.67 Electricity 2,512.01 2,512.01 491.07 3,003.08 3,294.52 6,297.60 Total Electricity 6,297.60 6,297.60 Gasoline 185.49 185.49 661.29 846.78 Total Gasoline 846.78 846.78 Heating Expenses- Gas 523.40 523.40 120.57 643.97 53.48 697.45 Total Heating Expenses- Gas 697.45 697.45 Medical Supplies & Physicals 203.24 203.24 Total Medical Supplies & Physicals 203.24 203.24 Office Supplies 16.97 16.97 262.36 279.33 Total Office Supplies 279.33 279.33 Other Equipment Repairs Page 7 of 9

11:45 AM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 07/26/16 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail June 2016 Amount Balance 198.00 198.00 Total Other Equipment Repairs 198.00 198.00 Program Expenses 6,177.00 6,177.00 330.00 6,507.00 2,675.00 9,182.00 147.00 9,329.00 1,416.50 10,745.50 3,470.00 14,215.50 Total Program Expenses 14,215.50 14,215.50 Radio Repairs 182.00 182.00 190.00 372.00 Total Radio Repairs 372.00 372.00 Safety & Security Material 1,636.79 1,636.79 Total Safety & Security Material 1,636.79 1,636.79 Small Tools 809.98 809.98 Total Small Tools 809.98 809.98 Telephone 290.34 290.34 20.29 310.63 300.20 610.83 300.20 911.03 Total Telephone 911.03 911.03 Training & Travel Expenses 70.00 70.00 400.00 470.00 1,345.00 1,815.00 1,000.00 2,815.00 Total Training & Travel Expenses 2,815.00 2,815.00 Uniforms 4,072.81 4,072.81 53.90 4,126.71 Total Uniforms 4,126.71 4,126.71 Water/Sewer 77.50 77.50 Page 8 of 9

11:45 AM Robbins Hose Company # 1, Inc. 07/26/16 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Detail June 2016 Amount Balance 14.49 91.99 42.96 134.95 92.50 227.45 14.49 241.94 Total Water/Sewer 241.94 241.94 Total Expense 37,292.58 37,292.58 Net Ordinary Income -37,292.58 -37,292.58 Net Income -37,292.58 -37,292.58 Page 9 of 9

FY 15-16 City Funded Account Balance Sheet ACCOUNT BUDGET SPENT BALANCE Apparatus Repairs & Maintenance $ 85,300.00 $ 157,773.17 $ (72,473.17) Building Maintenace Supplies $ 1,500.00 $ 230.99 $ 1,269.01 Command Vehicle $ 50,000.00 $ 46,973.93 $ 3,026.07 Contractual Services $ 10,500.00 $ 10,500.00 $ - Electricity $ 45,000.00 $ 44,059.02 $ 940.98 Gasoline $ 20,000.00 $ 10,743.25 $ 9,256.75 Heating Expenses- Gas $ 16,000.00 $ 10,885.76 $ 5,114.24 Medical Supplies $ 1,000.00 $ 818.46 $ 181.54 Office Supplies $ 2,000.00 $ 1,277.29 $ 722.71 Other Equipment Repairs $ 2,000.00 $ 935.39 $ 1,064.61 Program Expenses $ 37,000.00 $ 45,565.89 $ (8,565.89) Radio Repairs $ 2,000.00 $ 1,339.40 $ 660.60 Safety & Security $ 1,500.00 $ 1,663.09 $ (163.09) Small Tools $ 4,500.00 $ 1,371.42 $ 3,128.58 Telephone $ 10,000.00 $ 8,536.04 $ 1,463.96 Training & Travel $ 10,000.00 $ 6,005.00 $ 3,995.00 Uniforms & Firefighting Gear $ 30,000.00 $ 9,812.41 $ 20,187.59 Water/ Sewer $ 3,000.00 $ 1,601.57 $ 1,398.43 Balance as of: June 30, 2016

DEPARTMENT OF POLICE Paul M. Bernat 400 South Queen Street Chief of Police Dover, Delaware 19904 F.B.I.N.A. 302-736-7111 Fax: 302-672-1842 August 8, 2016 Honorable Robin Christiansen, Mayor Member of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Christiansen and Council Members: The following is the monthly report for Dover Police Department activities for the month of June 2016: COMPLAINTS Total complaints received through June 30th, numbered 21,942, this is an increase of 3,545 complaints over the same period last year. 25,000 21,942 20,000 17,942 17,773 18,397 16,884 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 8 7 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Burglary Robbery Rape Homicide Sudden Death Cases Reported in June Cases Cleared In June Cases Cleared from Previous Months 1|Page

DRUGS, VICE, & ORGANIZED CRIME SECTION (DVOC) SEIZURES Along with the drug seizures below, the DVOC also recovered $8,994.00 USD during the month of June. 1,000.00 830.60 493.3 500.00 90 32 7.65 0.00 Marijuana Cocaine Ectasy (Doses) Oxycodone Heroin (Doses) GRAMS/DOSES FIREARM SEIZURES 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI DVOC PATROL SEU HANDGUN RIFLE SHOTGUN COMMUNITY POLICING COMMUNITY POLICING CONTACTS ABANDONED VEHICLES 2 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI’S 0 ASSIST OTHER 13 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 CITY PARK VIOLATIONS 0 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 0 CADETS CONTACTS DRUG RELATED ARRESTS 0 PARKING 12 LOUD MUSIC 0 DCO’S 36 MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS 0 OPEN CONTAINER 19 PARKING VIOLATIONS 13 LOUD NOISE 0 PEDDLER 0 LEWDNESS 0 MEETINGS 114 OTHER 5 CRIME PREVENTION CHECK 0 BUSINESS CONTACTS 95 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 2 LIBRARY CHECKS 3 WARNINGS 0 COMPLAINTS ASSIGNED 61 FUGITIVE 0 SPECIAL EVENT 4 DCO 0 TOTAL CONTACTS 235 PROSTITUTION 0 TOTAL CONTACTS 144 2|Page

SAFE STREETS SAFE STREETS ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS ABANDONED VEHICLES 0 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI'S 0 ASSIST OTHER 19 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 CITY PARK VIOLATIONS 0 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 156 DRUG RELATED ARRESTS 74 LOUD MUSIC 0 MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS 4 PARKING VIOLATIONS 0 PEDDLER 0 MEETINGS 0 GUNS 2 CURFEW CHECKS 120 CRIME PREVENTION CHECKS 0 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 24 WARNINGS 26 FUGITIVES 21 DCO'S 0 PROSTITUTION 0 TOTAL CONTACTS 446 TRAFFIC ARRESTS The department issued 8,401 traffic citations through this reporting period, this is an increase of 1,770 citations over the number issued during the same period last year. 9,000 8,439 8,401 8,401 8,045 8,000 7,000 6,631 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 3|Page

TRAFFIC CRASHES Through June 30th, the Dover Police investigated 900 traffic crashes, an increase of 9 crashes investigated during the same period last year. 1050 1019 1000 978 951 950 891 900 900 850 800 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 911 Center During the month of June, the Dover Police Department handled a total of 9,505 calls averaging 317 calls per day. Dispatchers handled 2,338 on the 911 wireless lines, 488 on the 911 landlines, and 174 on the Voice Over Internet Protocol lines, the remaining 6,505 were administrative calls. 25% 5% 68% 2% 911 Wireless 911 Landline VoIP Administrative CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS Through June 30th, we issued 3,493 city ordinance summons, an increase of 359 summonses for the same period last year. Note: Of those summonses issued in June, 6 DCO’s were issued for handicapped parking violations and 0 for fire lane parking violations, 134 for false alarms (113, for 1-2 alarms, 16, for 3-5 alarms, 4, for 6-9 alarms, 1, for 10-15 alarms, and 0, for 16 or more alarms) and 9, for noise violations 8, for vehicle violations and 1, for residence violations). 4,000 3,727 3,680 3,521 3,493 3,241 3,134 3,500 3,000 2,507 2,500 2,144 1,866 1,742 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ISSUED 3,727 3,680 3,521 3,134 3,493 PAID 3,241 2,144 2,507 1,866 1,742 4|Page

SEX OFFENDER STATISTICS/JUNE MONTHLY NON COMPLIANT VERIFICATIONS NOTIFICATIONS REVERIFICATIONS WARRANTS TIER 1 0 0 0 0 TIER 2 22 2,046 16 3 TIER 3 18 1,672 34 0 ACTIVE SEX OFFENDERS THAT RESIDE IN THE CITY OF DOVER (please note, Tier 1 offenders are not contacted by Dover Police Sex Offender Agents). 250 194 200 185 150 94 100 88 50 0 MAY JUNE TIER 2 185 194 TIER 3 88 94 (Please note, Tier 1 offenders are not contacted by Dover Police Sex Offender Agents). Please visit our website at www.doverpolice.org for up to date information on crimes and activities in the City of Dover. Respectfully Submitted, Paul M. Bernat Chief of Police 5|Page

City of Dover Capital Investment Plan Project Tracking Report Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 Points to Remember - * Original Project Budget = Original Total Project Budget initially included in approved annual budget. * Latest Project Budget = Revised Total Project Budget included in most recent approved annual budget or one of the following: bond resolution, revolving fund loan agreement, Council approved budget amendment, or City Manager approved amendment as per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Current Fiscal Year - Revised Fiscal Year Budget = Current Year approved project budgets plus carry forward balances of unspent budgets in the prior fiscal year. Project Carry Forward balances will be submitted to City Council for amendment in January 2010. Can also be amended with City Manager approval per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Water Quality, Inflow/Infiltration, Distribution Upgrades and New Development projects are budgeted as a blanket project and once individual projects are identified and estimated they are created using an allocation of the overall budgeted amount. * Status and Comments provided by City Manager. Community Water & Total Current Year Budget Funding Sources General Transportation Wastewater Electric CIP Budget Balance $ 2,524,800 $ - $ 7,470,900 $ 3,662,800 $ 13,658,500 General Billings for Reimbursement of Expense 80,500 - 20,300 1,900,000 2,000,800 Income from Sale of Assets 120,800 - - - 120,800 State Community Transportation Funds - 890,100 - - 890,100 Transfer from WW Impact Fee Reserve - - 165,000 - 165,000 Transfer from General Fund 2,625,400 - - - 2,625,400 Transfer from Operating Funds - - 3,300,000 3,500,000 6,800,000 Transfer from Parkland Reserve - - - - - Development Grant - - - 15,000 15,000 Interest Income 5,000 - 69,900 57,900 132,800 Total Funding Sources (Unaudited) $ 5,356,500 $ 890,100 $ 11,026,100 $ 9,135,700 $ 26,408,400 1

City of Dover General Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 1 FY 2013 2 ST1304 M B/L Garrison Farm Improvements $ 2,000,000 $ 4,641,000 $ 4,218,860 $ 422,140 90.9% $ 1,496,500 $ 1,537,500 $ 1,115,279 $ 422,221 72.5% In Process Project approximately 98% complete 3 Totals - FY 2013 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,641,000 $ 4,218,860 $ 422,140 90.9% $ 1,496,500 $ 1,537,500 $ 1,115,279 $ 422,221 72.5% 4 5 FY 2015 6 FR1501 SCBA Equipment/Radios $ 588,800 $ 588,800 $ 588,632 $ 168 100.0% $ 300,200 $ 300,200 $ 299,981 $ 219 99.9% Complete 18 GO1501 GOTP Farmhouse Demo/Project 35,000 35,000 28,104 6,896 0.0% 35,000 35,000 28,104 6,896 80.3% Complete 7 PR1501 Park & Playground Impr Equipment 66,000 66,000 - 66,000 0.0% 66,000 66,000 - 66,000 0.0% 8 ST1502 R Streets, Alleys and Concrete Prog. 900,000 505,100 504,731 369 99.9% 441,500 322,200 321,744 456 99.9% Complete 9 ST1503 R Misc Emergency Street/Storm Repairs - 71,800 71,881 (81) 100.1% 35,000 31,800 31,791 9 100.0% Complete 10 ST1504 Old PW2 Site Improvements 535,000 603,500 493,276 110,224 81.7% 330,000 497,400 387,081 110,319 77.8% In Process Design work ongoing 95% level 11 ST1506 Stormwater Ditch Maintenance 15,000 15,000 13,284 1,716 88.6% 15,000 15,000 13,284 1,716 88.6% Complete 12 ST1508 G Stormwater Utility Planning 90,000 90,000 85,000 5,000 94.4% 82,400 82,400 77,350 5,050 93.9% Complete 13 Totals - FY 2015 $ 2,229,800 $ 1,975,200 $ 1,784,907 $ 190,293 90.4% $ 1,305,100 $ 1,350,000 $ 1,159,334 $ 190,666 85.9% 14 15 FY 2016 16 --- Vehicles & Equipment $ 1,095,200 $ 1,135,800 $ 851,032 $ 284,768 74.9% $ 1,095,200 $ 1,135,800 $ 851,032 $ 284,768 74.9% In Process 17 --- Annual Contribution to Robbins Hose 145,600 145,600 145,614 (14) 100.0% 145,600 145,600 145,614 (14) 100.0% Complete 19 PD1601 Camera Monitoring Station 19,900 19,900 19,900 0 100.0% 19,900 19,900 19,900 0 100.0% Complete 20 ST1601 R FY16 Street and Alley Program 1,000,000 933,100 400,932 532,168 43.0% 1,000,000 933,100 400,932 532,168 43.0% In Process 75% complete with project 21 ST1603 Valve Replacement - Silver Lake Dam 60,000 84,600 3,651 80,949 0.0% 60,000 84,600 3,651 80,949 4.3% In Process Awaiting materials to be delivered Proposals received, under review by 22 ST1604 Salt Storage Barn (originally proj ST1303) 50,000 75,000 12,562 62,438 16.7% 75,000 75,000 12,562 62,438 16.7% In Process CM/Controller 23 ST1605 R Misc Emergency Street/Storm Repairs - 75,000 17,339 57,661 23.1% - 75,000 17,339 57,661 23.1% Complete 24 Totals - FY 2016 $ 2,370,700 $ 2,469,000 $ 1,451,030 $ 1,017,970 58.8% $ 2,395,700 $ 2,469,000 $ 1,451,030 $ 1,017,970 58.8% 25 26 Grand Totals $ 6,600,500 $ 9,085,200 $ 7,454,797 $ 1,630,403 82.1% $ 5,197,300 $ 5,356,500 $ 3,725,643 $ 1,630,857 69.6% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. G = Grant funded project B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan. 2

City of Dover Community Transportation - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments Prior to FY 2014 1 ST0232 Pat Lynn Drive/D.H.S. Storm Drain Pipe $ 155,200 $ 190,300 $ 184,778 $ 5,522 97.1% $ - $ 5,500 $ - $ 5,500 0.0% Started 2 TE0601 TCSP Lincoln Park 900,000 602,425 523,277 79,148 86.9% - 79,100 - 79,100 0.0% Started 3 CT0708 E Water Street Brick 65,000 65,000 1,000 64,000 1.5% 65,000 65,000 1,000 64,000 1.5% In Process Bids to be received in August 4 Totals - Prior to FY 2014 $ 1,120,200 $ 857,725 $ 709,055 $ 148,670 82.7% $ 65,000 $ 149,600 $ 1,000 $ 148,600 0.7% 5 6 FY 2014 7 CT1405 Lakeview Drainage Study $ 24,400 $ 24,400 $ 24,371 $ 29 99.9% $ 6,300 $ 6,300 $ 6,184 $ 116 98.2% Complete 8 Totals - FY 2014 $ 24,400 $ 24,400 $ 24,371 $ 29 99.9% $ 6,300 $ 6,300 $ 6,184 $ 116 98.2% 9 10 FY 2015 11 CT1562 Village of Cannon Mill Repavement $ 315,000 $ 386,900 $ 375,680 $ 11,220 97.1% $ 361,000 $ 361,000 $ 349,683 $ 11,317 96.9% Complete 12 CT1599 Signage Agreement 2,700 2,700 2,520 180 93.3% 1,600 1,600 1,350 250 84.4% Complete 13 Totals - FY 2015 $ 317,700 $ 389,600 $ 378,200 $ 11,400 97.1% $ 362,600 $ 362,600 $ 351,033 $ 11,567 96.8% 14 15 FY 2016 16 CT1616 The Meadows $ 22,200 $ 22,200 $ 22,200 $ - 100.0% $ 22,200 $ 22,200 $ 22,200 $ - 100.0% Complete 17 CT1627 FY16 Paving Projects 247,400 247,400 139,762 107,638 56.5% 247,400 247,400 139,762 107,638 56.5% In Process Buck Drive to be completed in FY17 18 CT1632 FY16 Signs Projects 14,600 14,600 11,415 3,185 78.2% 14,600 14,600 11,415 3,185 78.2% Complete 19 CT1669 Persimmon Park Place Drainage Project 2,800 2,800 - 2,800 0.0% 2,800 2,800 - 2,800 0.0% In Process 90% complete with design 20 CT1681 Pedestrian Enhancement-Mallard Pond Pathway 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% In Process Bids to be received in August 21 CT1687 Parking Lot Improvements-Schutte Park 8,100 8,100 8,015 85 99.0% 8,100 8,100 8,015 85 99.0% Complete 22 CTxxxx Unapplied CT Projects (placeholder) 644,000 26,500 - 26,500 0.0% 144,000 26,500 - 26,500 0.0% 23 Totals - FY 2016 $ 989,100 $ 371,600 $ 181,392 $ 190,208 48.8% $ 489,100 $ 371,600 $ 181,392 $ 190,208 48.8% 24 25 Grand Totals $ 2,451,400 $ 1,643,325 $ 1,293,018 $ 350,308 78.7% $ 923,000 $ 890,100 $ 539,608 $ 350,492 60.6% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. C = Project funded by combination of CT Funds and General Fund 3

City of Dover Water/Wastewater Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Original Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 1 FY 2008 - FY 2013 2 WD0804 M 1.0 MG Elevated Water Storage $ 4,196,600 $ 2,556,000 $ 87,827 $ 2,468,173 3.4% $ 2,468,200 $ 2,468,200 $ - $ 2,468,200 0.0% In Process Staff to meet with property owner in August 3 WD1302 M Garrison Farm Water Storage Tank 2,695,000 4,677,000 4,546,261 130,739 97.2% 1,297,300 1,297,300 1,166,521 130,779 89.9% In Process Awaiting final invoice from contractor 4 WW1304 M Garrison Farm WW Improvements 2,000,000 3,738,400 3,654,281 84,119 97.7% 628,500 628,500 544,305 84,195 86.6% In Process Awaiting final invoice from contractor 5 Totals - FY 2008 - FY 2013 $ 8,891,600 $ 10,971,400 $ 8,288,369 $ 2,683,031 75.5% $ 4,394,000 $ 4,394,000 $ 1,710,827 $ 2,683,173 38.9% 6 7 FY 2014 Awaiting final deliverables and paperwork from 8 WW1206 Brandywine Pump Station $ 402,000 $ 375,600 $ 274,381 $ 101,219 73.1% $ 101,200 $ 101,200 $ - $ 101,200 0.0% In Process contractor 9 WW1303 Westover PS & Force Main Upgrade 768,800 1,403,900 290,518 1,113,382 20.7% 1,292,400 1,345,900 232,516 1,113,384 17.3% In Process Contractor is on site, approximately 25% complete 10 Totals - FY 2014 $ 1,170,800 $ 1,779,500 $ 564,899 $ 1,214,601 31.7% $ 1,393,600 $ 1,447,100 $ 232,516 $ 1,214,584 16.1% 11 12 FY 2015 13 WQ1503 West Dover Connector Project $ 336,000 $ 338,800 $ 337,787 $ 1,013 99.7% $ 73,600 $ 76,400 $ 75,319 $ 1,081 98.6% Complete 14 WW1504 Lakeview Dr Pump Stn Replacement 450,000 425,000 360,867 64,133 84.9% 359,600 376,200 312,050 64,150 82.9% Complete Awaiting final invoices 15 WW1507 Retreat Pump Station Replacement 412,500 483,900 36,331 447,569 7.5% 360,500 447,700 157 447,543 0.0% In Process Awaiting delivery of materials, August 16 WW1509 West Dover Connector Road Utility Relo 922,000 922,300 922,221 79 100.0% 387,300 387,300 387,180 120 100.0% Complete 17 Totals - FY 2015 $ 2,120,500 $ 2,170,000 $ 1,657,206 $ 512,794 76.4% $ 1,181,000 $ 1,287,600 $ 774,706 $ 512,894 60.2% 18 19 FY 2016 20 --- R Vehicles & Equipment $ 409,500 $ 416,900 $ 369,874 $ 47,026 88.7% $ 103,700 $ 416,900 $ 369,874 $ 47,026 88.7% In Process WD1600/ 21 WW1600 R Meter Replacement Project 300,000 300,000 94,511 205,489 31.5% 300,000 300,000 94,511 205,489 31.5% Complete 22 WD1601 R Wellhead Redevelopment 82,500 82,500 51,625 30,875 62.6% 82,500 82,500 51,625 30,875 62.6% Complete 23 WD1605 R Future Well Installation 80,000 80,000 20,772 59,228 26.0% 80,000 80,000 20,772 59,228 26.0% Complete 24 WD1606 New Fence-Bayard Ave Water Tower 89,000 84,200 81,213 2,987 96.5% 89,000 84,200 81,213 2,987 96.5% Complete 25 WD1607 R SCADA Equipment Tech Upgrade 83,000 83,000 80,339 2,661 96.8% 83,000 83,000 80,339 2,661 96.8% Complete 26 WD1608 Shallow Well #7 Abandonment 15,000 15,000 8,815 6,185 58.8% 15,000 15,000 8,815 6,185 58.8% Complete 27 WD1609 R WTP Process Improvements 284,400 330,900 233,278 97,622 70.5% 284,400 330,900 233,278 97,622 70.5% In Process Design work continuing, approcimately 80% 28 WQ1601 R Water Quality Improvements 1,000,000 839,800 10,330 829,470 1.2% 1,000,000 839,800 10,330 829,470 1.2% In Process Bids for New Street in July 29 WQ1602 R/T Misc Emerg Water Quality Repairs - 83,700 83,604 96 99.9% - 83,700 83,604 96 99.9% Complete 30 WQ1603 T Reimb KC for Water Main Increase - 30,000 30,000 - 100.0% - 30,000 30,000 - 100.0% Complete 31 WW1503 Hazzletteville Road Interceptor 755,000 774,100 20,250 753,850 2.6% 462,100 774,100 20,250 753,850 2.6% In Process Project ongoing, approximately 20% complete 32 WW1601 R Inflow/Infiltration Removal 875,000 118,300 - 118,300 0.0% 875,000 118,300 - 118,300 0.0% Complete 33 WW1602 Puncheon Run 160,000 160,000 - 160,000 0.0% 160,000 160,000 - 160,000 0.0% In Process Bids to be received in August/September 34 WW1602 US 13 East PS #7 Repairs 140,000 140,000 - 140,000 0.0% 140,000 140,000 - 140,000 0.0% In Process Bids to be received in August/September 35 WW1603 Rolling Acres PS Replacement 52,000 52,000 27,894 24,106 53.6% 52,000 52,000 27,894 24,106 53.6% In Process Design work underway, approx 95% complete. Bids received too high, construction scheduled for late 36 WW1605 DE Ave Sanitary Sewer Extension 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% In Process fall 37 WW1607 T US 13 East PS #7 Repairs - 105,700 105,514 186 99.8% - 105,700 105,514 186 99.8% Complete 38 WW1608 T St Jones River Sewer Repair - 47,300 45,494 1,806 96.2% - 47,300 45,494 1,806 96.2% Complete 39 WW1609 T McKee Tax Ditch Sewer Repair - 27,300 26,662 638 97.7% - 27,300 26,662 638 97.7% Complete 40 II1603 R/T Misc Emergency I&I Repairs - 101,700 101,628 72 99.9% - 101,700 101,628 72 99.9% Complete 41 Totals - FY 2016 $ 4,350,400 $ 3,897,400 $ 1,391,802 $ 2,505,598 35.7% $ 3,751,700 $ 3,897,400 $ 1,391,802 $ 2,505,598 35.7% 42 43 44 Grand Totals $ 16,533,300 $ 18,818,300 $ 11,902,276 $ 6,916,024 63.2% $ 10,720,300 $ 11,026,100 $ 4,109,851 $ 6,916,249 37.3% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is budgeted to start over each fiscal year. No carry forward. SL = State Loan Project - construction phase is financed I = Impact Fee (partially) financed project T = Transfer from blanket WQ or I&I original budget 4

City of Dover Electric Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Current Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 1 FY 2012 - FY 2013 2 EG1212 M Unit 3 Turbine Inspection/Repair $ 1,760,000 $ 1,713,600 $ 1,699,848 $ 13,752 99.2% $ 53,500 $ 53,500 $ 39,700 $ 13,800 74.2% Complete 3 EE1312 M General Scott Switchgear 1,150,000 1,145,000 840,047 304,953 73.4% 1,107,200 1,097,200 792,252 304,948 72.2% Complete 4 Totals - FY 2012 - FY 2013 $ 2,910,000 $ 2,858,600 $ 2,539,895 $ 318,705 88.9% $ 1,160,700 $ 1,150,700 $ 831,952 $ 318,748 72.3% 5 6 FY 2014 7 EE1443 GOTP Transmission Line Relocation $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 310,603 $ 239,397 56.5% $ 408,500 $ 408,500 $ 169,076 $ 239,424 41.4% Complete 8 EG1407 Metering System Upgrades - Plant 150,000 80,000 $ - $ 80,000 0.0% 80,000 80,000 - 80,000 0.0% In Process Meters on order 9 EE1415 R Metering Infrastructure $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 0.0% $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 0.0% In Process 10 EG1416 M VanSant Capacity Increase 1,500,000 1,000,000 729,148 270,852 72.9% 492,200 492,200 221,308 270,892 45.0% In Process Install air compressor and equipment shed. 11 Totals - FY 2014 $ 2,350,000 $ 1,780,000 $ 1,039,751 $ 740,249 58.4% $ 1,130,700 $ 1,130,700 $ 390,384 $ 740,316 34.5% 12 13 FY 2015 14 EG1504 McKee Unit 3 Boiler System $ 890,000 $ 180,000 $ 126,638 $ 53,362 70.4% $ 80,800 $ 122,800 $ 69,351 $ 53,449 56.5% In Process Multi-year project 15 EG1506 McKee & VanSant Safety Improvement 52,000 52,000 34,623 17,377 66.6% 18,300 18,300 847 17,453 4.6% In Process 16 EE1500 69 kV Rebuild 393,500 330,500 79,910 250,590 24.2% 318,500 318,500 67,881 250,619 21.3% In Process On hold until fall & farmer coordination. 17 EE1509 West Dover Connector 250,000 250,000 108,563 141,437 43.4% 155,800 155,800 14,355 141,445 9.2% In Process Awaiting State for go ahead to move forward. 18 EE1513 M Town Point Distribution Feeders 600,000 590,800 511,478 79,322 86.6% 350,000 350,000 270,641 79,359 77.3% In Process Phase 1 about 80% complete 19 EE1516 Chestnut Grove 299,000 255,000 164,799 90,201 64.6% 136,000 136,000 45,801 90,199 33.7% Complete Phase 1 complete except meters. 20 EE1522 Garrison Oak Park 184,000 184,000 166,523 17,477 90.5% 17,500 17,500 - 17,500 0.0% Complete 21 EE1525 Leander Lakes Apt Phase 1 73,000 73,000 64,866 8,134 88.9% 69,400 69,400 61,257 8,143 88.3% Complete Phase 1 complete except meters. 22 EE1526 Playtex Addition 354,100 344,100 285,503 58,597 83.0% 150,000 140,000 81,367 58,633 58.1% Complete 23 EE1544 Nottingham Meadows 28,600 28,600 27,299 1,301 95.5% 26,600 26,600 25,288 1,312 95.1% Complete 24 EE1547 NBR Properties 16,600 14,200 14,012 188 98.7% 11,500 11,325 175 98.5% Complete 25 Totals - FY 2015 $ 3,140,800 $ 2,302,200 $ 1,584,214 $ 717,986 68.8% $ 1,322,900 $ 1,366,400 $ 648,113 $ 718,287 47.4% 26 27 FY 2016 28 --- R Vehicles & Equipment 464,300 460,600 401,141 59,459 87.1% 464,300 460,600 401,141 59,459 87.1% In Process 29 EG1601 R McKee Building Equipment Replacement 42,000 42,000 40,018 1,982 95.3% 42,000 42,000 40,018 1,982 95.3% In Process Building heating modifications. 30 EG1607 Unit 3 Auxilary Equipment 135,000 135,000 98,331 36,669 72.8% 135,000 135,000 98,331 36,669 72.8% In Process Nitrogen generator installation in process. 31 EG1608 McKee & VanSant CEMS Upgrade 89,000 9,000 7,299 1,701 81.1% 89,000 9,000 7,299 1,701 81.1% Complete Work completed. 32 EG1609 R VanSant Unit 11 Component Replacem 21,000 21,000 13,051 7,949 62.1% 21,000 21,000 13,051 7,949 62.1% In Process Work completed on gas skid regulators. Front lobby access improvements, replace obsolete 2- 33 EG1610 R McKee/VanSant Safety & Compliance 157,000 157,000 20,860 136,140 13.3% 157,000 157,000 20,860 136,140 13.3% In Process way radios Expenditures have been in support of T&D 34 EG1611 R McKee/VanSant Preserve Structure 215,000 215,000 28,832 186,168 13.4% 215,000 215,000 28,832 186,168 13.4% In Process transformer repairs. 35 EG1612 Van Sant Exhaust Plenum Replacement 469,000 469,000 422,659 46,341 90.1% 469,000 469,000 422,659 46,341 90.1% In Process Work to be completed in fall 2016. 36 EG1613 McKee Unit 3 Stack Repairs 485,000 485,000 2,624 482,376 0.5% 485,000 485,000 2,624 482,376 0.5% In Process Bids received and in evaluation process. 37 EE1603 R Transmission Line Maintenance Program 75,000 75,000 31,881 43,119 42.5% 75,000 75,000 31,881 43,119 42.5% In Process 38 EE1604 R Lighting Proj & Rehab 67,000 67,000 68,101 (1,101) 101.6% 67,000 67,000 68,101 (1,101) 101.6% In Process 69 kV Cable Replacement North Street 39 EE1605 (originally proj EE1520) 565,700 135,000 - 135,000 0.0% 135,000 135,000 - 135,000 0.0% In Process Awaiting survey 40 EE1606 R Distribution Capacitors and Controls 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% In Process 41 EE1607 Horsepond URD - Distribution Feeders 67,000 112,000 49,450 62,550 44.2% 67,000 112,000 49,450 62,550 44.2% In Process 42 EE1610 R Fault Indicators 10,000 10,000 8,828 1,172 88.3% 10,000 10,000 8,828 1,172 88.3% In Process 43 EE1612 Dover AFB Substation Rebuild 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% In Process 44 EE1616 R New Developments 2,500,000 1,684,000 - 1,684,000 0.0% 2,500,000 1,684,000 - 1,684,000 0.0% In Process 45 EE1617 Oak Grove Trailer Park - Dist Upgrade 78,500 78,500 1,137 77,363 1.4% 78,500 78,500 1,137 77,363 1.4% In Process 46 EE1618 Lakeland - Distribution Upgrades 63,000 63,000 33,626 29,374 53.4% 63,000 63,000 33,626 29,374 53.4% Complete 47 EE1619 Route 8/Mifflin Road - Dist Upgrade 51,500 51,500 - 51,500 0.0% 51,500 51,500 - 51,500 0.0% Deferred Possible cancel (TBD) 48 EE1620 Route 8 Taps - Distribution Upgrade 38,500 38,500 34,778 3,722 90.3% 38,500 38,500 34,778 3,722 90.3% Complete 49 EE1621 Townsend Brothers - Dist Upgrade 14,500 14,500 6,944 7,556 47.9% 14,500 14,500 6,944 7,556 47.9% Complete 50 EE1622 Persimmon Tree Apts - Dist Upgrade 62,000 17,000 16,980 20 99.9% 62,000 17,000 16,980 20 99.9% Complete 51 EE1623 T DNREC R&R Metering - 41,000 - 41,000 0.0% - 41,000 - 41,000 0.0% Deferred Possible cancel (TBD). Awaiting DNREC. 52 EE1625 T Public Works Wetland Project - - - - 0.0% - - - - 0.0% Deferred Deferred until FY17 53 EE1626 T Washington Street Lights - - - - 0.0% - - - - 0.0% Cancel Rolled funds into New Street lights project 54 EE1627 Dover East Estates - Dist Upgrade 130,000 130,000 4,530 125,470 3.5% 130,000 130,000 4,530 125,470 3.5% In Process 55 EE1629 T Tall Pine Condos - 43,000 - 43,000 0.0% - 43,000 - 43,000 0.0% In Process 56 EE1630 Reed Street Roof Repair/Replacement 201,800 151,800 132,083 19,718 87.0% 201,800 151,800 132,083 19,718 87.0% In Process INW 57 EE1631 North Street OH to UG - Dist Upgrade 100,000 - - - 0.0% 100,000 - - - 0.0% Deferred Deferred until FY18 58 EE1632 T Blue Hen Corp - Phase I - 25,600 23,150 2,450 90.4% - 25,600 23,150 2,450 90.4% Complete 59 EE1633 T State Street Commons Fiber Optic Proj - 64,000 40,233 23,767 62.9% - 64,000 40,233 23,767 62.9% Complete 60 EE1635 T McKee Road - Edgewell - 7,000 6,952 48 99.3% - 7,000 6,952 48 99.3% Complete 61 EE1636 T Clearview - Phase 4 - 160,000 148,779 11,221 93.0% - 160,000 148,779 11,221 93.0% Complete Complete except for meters 62 EE1637 T Dover Town Center Flex Site - 13,900 13,526 374 97.3% - 13,900 13,526 374 97.3% Complete 5

City of Dover Electric Improvement & Extension Fund - Major CIP Projects Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2016 PRELIMINARY TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project % Current Revised Fiscal % Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Budget Code Type Description Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Status Comments 63 EE1638 T Dover Town Center - 35,200 25,332 9,868 72.0% - 35,200 25,332 9,868 72.0% Complete 64 EE1639 T Outback Steakhouse - 30,600 27,647 2,953 90.3% - 30,600 27,647 2,953 90.3% Complete Complete except for meters 65 EE1641 Reed St - Building/Safety Improvements - 50,000 46,181 3,819 92.4% - 50,000 46,181 3,819 92.4% In Process 66 EE1642 T Del Homes Warehouse - 18,000 15,374 2,626 85.4% - 18,000 15,374 2,626 85.4% Complete 67 EE1643 T Winner Volkswagen - 13,300 12,772 528 96.0% - 13,300 12,772 528 96.0% Complete Complete except for meters 68 EE1644 T Retreat Pump Station - 7,300 - 7,300 0.0% - 7,300 - 7,300 0.0% In Process Awaiting Public Works go-ahead 69 EE1645 T Dover Family Cosmetic - 10,300 10,197 103 99.0% - 10,300 10,197 103 99.0% Complete 70 EE1646 T Loockerman Retail - 26,500 23,753 2,747 89.6% - 26,500 23,753 2,747 89.6% Complete 71 EE1647 T Ollies Transformer Replacement - 22,600 11,198 11,402 49.5% - 22,600 11,198 11,402 49.5% Complete 72 EE1648 T New Service - Blue Hen Apartments - 23,900 - 23,900 0.0% - 23,900 - 23,900 0.0% In Process 73 EE1649 T New Service - K-Mart Store - 20,300 19,567 733 96.4% - 20,300 19,567 733 96.4% Complete Complete except for meters 74 EE1651 T Papen Farms Irrigation - 28,000 25,735 2,265 91.9% - 28,000 25,735 2,265 91.9% Complete 75 EE1652 T/G S New Street Lighting - 70,000 9,851 60,149 14.1% - 70,000 9,851 60,149 14.1% In Process Install inwork 76 EE1653 Switchgear - Westover Entrance - 18,800 18,752 48 99.7% - 18,800 18,752 48 99.7% Complete 77 EE1654 Switchgear - Woodmill Apartments - 18,700 18,648 52 99.7% - 18,700 18,648 52 99.7% Complete 78 EE1655 Switchgear - Lewis Drive - 18,700 18,648 52 99.7% - 18,700 18,648 52 99.7% Complete 79 EE1656 T Royal Farms Car Chargers - 9,600 - 9,600 0.0% - 9,600 - 9,600 0.0% On hold Waiting on customer go-ahead 80 EE1657 T Creek Stone Office 2 - 10,200 - 10,200 0.0% - 10,200 - 10,200 0.0% On hold Waiting on customer go-ahead 81 Totals - FY 2016 $ 16,463,400 $ 13,022,300 $ 6,876,778 $ 6,145,522 52.8% $ 5,751,100 $ 5,487,900 $ 1,939,452 $ 3,548,448 35.3% 82 83 Grand Totals $ 24,864,200 $ 19,963,100 $ 12,040,637 $ 7,922,463 60.3% $ 9,365,400 $ 9,135,700 $ 3,809,901 $ 5,325,799 41.7% Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. B = Bonded Project R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. S = State fully or partially reimbursed project T = Transfer from blanket New Development original budget G = Grant funded project 6

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: City Council DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works DATE SUBMITTED: 7/29/16 PREPARED BY: Sharon Duca, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Evaluation of Bids – North State Street Gravity Sewer Repair REFERENCE: CIP- Inflow / Infiltration RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Controller EXHIBITS: Attachment A – Aerial Map EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $335,470.00 BUDGET: $1,121,000.00 REMAINING BUDGET: $785,530.00 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Department of Public Works - Wastewater Management, CIP Project # II1701, CIP Project Name: Inflow / Infiltration Removal Account No.: 417-6900-569.40-31. TIME TABLE: Notice to proceed to be issued within thirty (30) days of Council approval. Project anticipated to be completed in 60 calendar days. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award the contract to Eastern States Construction Service, Inc. for the City of Dover North State Street Gravity Sewer Repair Project, Bid #16-0045PW, for the amount of $335,470.00. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Improvement Plan includes a project called Inflow / Infiltration Removal. Staff identified this project through physical sinkholes in State Street. This project was created to repair existing infrastructure to reduce the impacts of a failing sanitary sewer main. The sewer main was also investigated with a camera, which showed breaks in the pipe, allowing ground water to enter the system. The work includes the removal of existing 12” sanitary sewer main, re-lining of existing 18” sanitary sewer main and relocation of existing sanitary sewer laterals The bid was advertised to the public as an Invitation to Bid in accordance with the City’s purchasing policy by the City’s Purchasing Agent under ITB #16-0045PW. Bids were opened on July 6, 2016. The City of Dover received two (2) bids shown in the table below: CONTRACTOR LOCATION BASE BID AZTECH CONTRACTING, INC. DOVER, DE $299,575.50* EASTERN STATES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. WILMINGTON, DE $335,470.00 * = Aztech Contracting, Inc., did not submit the necessary documents for the bid, and as such, are deemed non-responsive and cannot be awarded the bid. City staff reviewed the submissions and found that Eastern States Construction Services, Inc. bid met all requirements for the qualifications of the project. The staff recommends awarding the contract to Eastern States Construction Services, Inc. in the amount of $335,470 for the North State Street Gravity Sewer Repair Project.

Exhibit A North State Street Sanitary Sewer Replacement 305 40 305 30 300 24 301 land Ave Mary 301 241 240 211 S t Mary 231 236 228 229 237 201 230 231 227 N Am t th S Smi 222 ve an A 229 224 eric 223 212 227 222 at e S N St 219 225 218 t 206 215 223 216 202 213 adfo 220 N Br 212 rd S t 208 201 213 11 138 200 208 141 134 139 St Cecil 120 128 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, 129 Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 127 0 50 100 Feet Date Printed: July 26, 2016 Legend File: m:\gis_data\projects\tech_mxds Project Area Sewer Line 16" 24" 36" ¯ \jason_lyon_maps\caf_maps \caf_n_state_st_sewer_replacement Dover Parcels 10" 18" 27" 4" Department: Public Works GIS 12" 20" 30" 6" City of Dover, Delaware 15" 21" 35" 8"

FIRST READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2016-19 WITH COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE/LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AMENDMENT #1 (CCW/LF&A#1) (CCW/LF&A#1 indicated in green text) 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL 2 MET: 3 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I - In General, Section 22-1 - Construction 4 Code Appeals Committee of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and 5 inserting the blue text, as follows: 6 Sec. 22-1. - Construction code appeals committee Construction and property maintenance code board 7 of appeals. 8 (a) Established; composition; appointment. There shall be a committee to be referred to as the 9 "construction code appeals committee," “construction and property maintenance code 10 board of appeals,” consisting of three five (5) members, one of whom shall be the city 11 manager. The council president shall appoint and the other two (2) three (3) being 12 elected city officials and the mayor shall appoint one (1) city resident generally selected 13 as a representative of homeowners and one (1) representative of the local real estate 14 industry association. The city officials shall be appointed by the city council president 15 at the council annual meeting. Members shall serve one-year terms unless sooner 16 removed. All appointments are subject to confirmation by the city council at its second 17 regular meeting in May. The construction and property maintenance code board of 18 appeals shall elect one of its members as chairperson. 19 (b) Appeals. Whenever any person is aggrieved by a decision of the building inspector with 20 respect to the provision of this chapter, it is the right of that person to appeal to the 21 construction code appeals committee construction and property maintenance code 22 board of appeals. Such appeal must be filed, in writing, within 30 days after the 23 determination by the building inspector. 24 (c) Notice; hearing. Upon receipt of such an appeal, the construction code appeals committee 25 construction and property maintenance code board of appeals shall set a time and place 26 in not less than ten, nor more than 30 days for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Notice of 27 the time and place of the hearing of the appeal shall be given to all parties, at which time they 28 may appear and be heard. The determination by the construction code appeals committee 29 construction and property maintenance code board of appeals shall be final in all cases. 30 (Code 1981, § 5-3; Ord. of 4-25-1994) 31 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 32 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article III - Building Code, Section 22-61 - Adopted, 33 Subsection (a) - International Building Code adopted, Section 113 - Board of Appeals of the Dover Code 34 be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the blue text, as follows:

35 Section 113 BOARD OF APPEALS. See Chapter 22-Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I-In 36 General, Sec. 22-1 Construction code appeals committee Construction and property maintenance code 37 board of appeals. 38 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 39 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article III - Building Code, Section 22-61 - Adopted, 40 Subsection (b) - International Residential Code Adopted, Section R112 - Board of Appeals of the Dover 41 Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the blue text, as follows: 42 SECTION R112 BOARD OF APPEALS See Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I 43 - In General, Sec. 22-1 Construction code appeals committee Construction and property maintenance 44 code board of appeals. 45 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 46 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VII - Property Maintenance Code, Section 47 22-221 - Adopted, Subsection (a), Section 111 - Means of Appeal of the Dover Code be amended by 48 deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the blue text, as follows: 49 SECTION 111 MEANS OF APPEAL See Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VII 50 - Property Maintenance Code, Sec. 22-225 Property maintenance code board of appeals Article I - In 51 General, Sec. 22-1 Construction and property maintenance code board of appeals. 52 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 53 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VII - Property Maintenance Code, Section 54 22-225 - Property Maintenance Code Board of Appeals of the Dover Code be amended by deleting it in its 55 entirety, as follows: 56 Sec. 22-225. - Property maintenance code board of appeals. 57 There shall be a board to be referred to as the "property maintenance code board of appeals," 58 consisting of three members, one of whom shall be the city manager, one a resident generally selected 59 as a representative of homeowners, and one representative of the local real estate industry association. 60 The members shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation of a voting majority of the city 61 council at its annual meeting. Decisions of the board shall be final. 62 (Code 1981, § 10-5; Ord. of 7-10-1989; Ord. of 4-10-2000) 63 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 64 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article XII - Vacant Buildings, Section 22-406 - 65 Appeals of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the blue 66 text, as follows: 67 Sec. 22-406. - Appeals of the 25 percent over market rate. 68 (a) Any appeal of the building inspector's decision must be made in writing within 30 days of the

69 decision. The appeal would be heard by the property maintenance code board of appeals. 70 (b) An appeal of the 25 percent over market rate (from the actively for sale or lease definition) can be 71 considered through an appraisal using accepted appraisal standards to determine market rate. The owner has 72 the option of asking the city tax assessor to perform the appraisal or having one performed (using accepted 73 appraisal standards) at their own expense. 74 (Ord. of 6-26-2006; Ord. No. 2013-03, 3-11-2013) 75 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 76 That Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article III - Fire Codes, Section 46-125 - Construction 77 Code Appeals Committee of the Dover Code be amended by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and 78 inserting the blue text, as follows: 79 Sec. 46-125. - Construction code appeals committee Appeal; hearing. 80 (a) Composition; appointment. There shall be a committee to be referred to as the "construction 81 code appeals committee," consisting of three members, one of whom shall be the city manager and 82 the other two being elected city officials. The city officials shall be appointed by the city council 83 president at its annual meeting. 84 (b) Appeal; hearing. Whenever any person is aggrieved by a decision of the fire marshal with respect 85 to the provisions of this chapter, it is the right of that person to appeal to the construction code appeals 86 committee construction and property maintenance code board of appeals, as provided for in Chapter 87 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I - In General, Section 22-1 - Construction and 88 property maintenance code board of appeals. Such appeal must be filed, in writing, within 30 days after 89 the determination by the fire marshal. Upon receipt of such appeal, the construction code appeals 90 committee construction and property maintenance code board of appeals shall set a time and place, in 91 not less than ten or more than 30 days, for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Notice of the time and place 92 of the hearing of the appeal shall be given to all parties, at which time they may appear and be heard. The 93 determination by the construction code appeals committee construction and property maintenance code 94 board of appeals shall be final in all cases. 95 (Code 1981, § 7-60; Ord. of 5-10-1982; Ord. of 11-22-1993) 96 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 97 That Chapter 50 - Floods, Article IV - Variances, Section 50-46 - Variances of the Dover Code be amended 98 by deleting the text indicated in red strikeout and inserting the blue text, as follows: 99 Sec. 50-46. - Variances. 100 The City of Dover Construction Code Appeals Committee construction and property maintenance code 101 board of appeals, as provided for in Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I - In 102 General, Section 22-1 - Construction and property maintenance code board of appeals, shall have the 103 power to authorize, in specific cases, such variances from the requirements of these regulations and the flood 104 load and flood load and flood-resistant construction of the building code, not inconsistent with federal 105 regulations, as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions of the lot or 106 parcel, a literal enforcement of the provisions of these regulations would result in unnecessary hardship.

107 (1) Application for a variance. 108 a. Any owner, or agent thereof, of property for which a variance is sought shall submit an 109 application for a variance to the floodplain administrator. 110 b. At a minimum, such application shall contain the following information: Name, address, and 111 telephone number of the applicant; legal description of the property; parcel map; description 112 of the existing use; description of the proposed use; location of the floodplain; description 113 of the variance sought; and reason for the variance request. Each variance application shall 114 specifically address each of the considerations in section 50-46(2) and the limitations and 115 conditions of section 50-46(3). 116 (2) Considerations for variances. In considering variance applications, the City of Dover Construction 117 Code Appeals Committee construction and property maintenance code board of appeals shall 118 consider and make findings of fact on all evaluations, all relevant factors, requirements specified in 119 other sections of these regulations, and the following factors: 120 a. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others. 121 b. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage. 122 c. The susceptibility of the proposed development and its contents (if applicable) to flood 123 damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. 124 d. The importance of the services provided by the proposed development to the community. 125 e. The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to, or are 126 subject to less, flooding or erosion damage. 127 f. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable, or if the facility is a 128 functionally dependent use. 129 g. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development. 130 h. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan for that area. 131 i. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 132 j. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood 133 waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site. 134 k. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including 135 maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and 136 water systems, and streets and bridges. 137 (3) Limitations for variances. 138 a. An affirmative decision on a variance request shall only be issued upon: 139 1. A showing of good and sufficient cause. A "good and sufficient" cause is one that 140 deals solely with the physical characteristics of the property and cannot be based on 141 the character of the planned construction or substantial improvement, the personal 142 characteristics of the owner or inhabitants, or local provisions that regulate standards 143 other than health and public safety standards. 144 2. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional 145 hardship due to the physical characteristics of the property. 146 3. Increased cost or inconvenience of meeting the requirements of these regulations 147 does not constitute an exceptional hardship to the applicant. 148 4. A determination that the granting of a variance for development within any 149 designated floodway, or special flood hazard area with base flood elevations but no 150 floodway, will not result in increased flood heights beyond that which is allowed in

151 these regulations. 152 5. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in additional threats to 153 public safety; extraordinary public expense, nuisances, fraud on or victimization of 154 the public, or conflict with existing local laws. 155 6. A determination that the structure or other development is protected by methods to 156 minimize flood damages. 157 7. A determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood 158 hazard, to afford relief. 159 b. Upon consideration of the individual circumstances, the limitations and conditions, and the 160 purposes of these regulations, the City of Dover Construction Code Appeals Committee 161 construction and property maintenance code board of appeals may attach such 162 conditions to variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of these regulations. 163 c. The City of Dover Construction Code Appeals Committee construction and property 164 maintenance code board of appeals shall notify any applicant in writing to whom a 165 variance is granted for a building or structure with a lowest floor elevation below the base 166 flood elevation that the variance is to the floodplain management requirements only, and that 167 the cost of federal flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk. 168 (Ord. No. 2014-09, 6-9-2014) 169 ADOPTED: * 170 S:\ORDINANCES\2016\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2016-19 CONSOLIDATION OF PROPERTY MAINTENANCE & CONTRUCTION CODE BOARDS OF APPEAL\Proposed Ordinance #2016-19 Amending 171 Ch 22; Ch 46; and Ch 50 with CCW-LF&A#1-FIRST READING.wpd 172 SYNOPSIS 173 The proposed ordinance would consolidate the Construction Code Appeals Committee and 174 the Property Maintenan